Characteristics of State and Federal Malpractice Litigation of Medical Liability Claims for Keratinocyte Carcinoma, 1968 to 2018

Abstract

The prevalence of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) exceeds that of all other malignant neoplasms combined. Despite the steady rise of payments for medical malpractice liability claims over time, data regarding the characteristics of malpractice litigation for KC are scarce.OBJECTIVE To identify state and federal appellate medical malpractice liability cases for KC and determine the factors associated with the verdicts. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective review of KC-related malpractice litigation under state or federal jurisdiction reviewed the LexisNexis Academic database of state and federal cases, legal reviews, and case law. All appellate medical malpractice cases at the state and federal levels involving basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) from January 1, 1968, through December 31, 2018, were identified.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Demographic characteristics of the cases and plaintiffs, verdict, health care specialty of the defendant, setting of the litigation, rationale for the lawsuit and verdict, factors associated with the case outcome, and monetary payout in cases won by the plaintiff.RESULTS In total, 83 cases were included in our analysis (34 BCC cases and 49 SCC cases; 47 [57%] male plaintiffs). Sixty-two cases (75%) were decided in favor of the defendant. More KC-related malpractice cases were won by defendants in more recent years than were won by plaintiffs (mean year, 2004 [SD, 11 years] vs 1998; P = .03). Twenty-five cases (30%) each occurred in the Northeast and the South, and 45 (54%) involved private practices. Most cases involved KCs occurring on the face, head, and/or neck (39 [47%]), the genitalia (22 [27%]), or the extremities (15 [18%]). More than half of defendants were dermatologists (19 [23%]), family medicine physicians (15 [18%]), or oncologists (8 [10%]). Jurisprudence for KC-related malpractice cases most often occurred at the state level (49 [59%]). The most common causes of litigation were failure to diagnose (18 [22%]), misdiagnosis (18 [22%]), and delay in treatment (11 [13%]). More female than male plaintiffs won their malpractice cases (11 of 35 [31%] vs 5 of 43 [12%]; P = .03). More cases involving SCC than BCC led to a decision favoring the plaintiff (13 of 47 [28%] vs 3 of 31 [10%]; P = .05).

Patient privacy and autonomy: a comparative analysis of cases of ethical dilemmas in China and the United States

“…Healthcare professionals frequently encounter situations that involve medical ethical principles leading to ethical dilemmas [16,17]. In the past few decades, the use of courts, to resolve intractable ethical dilemmas, has increased across both developed and developing countries [18][19][20][21]. Despite the growing volume of literature exploring patient privacy and autonomy, there is a dearth of comparative studies that explore cases of ethical dilemmas between China and the United States.…”

Insights of Bioethics among Healthcare Professionals in All Public and PrivateHospitals of District Haripur, Pakistan

“…As a consequence, many healthcare workers are not putting ethical principles into practice regularly, which has led to a major gap in the quality of patient care. Moreover, a lack of understanding and application of biomedical ethics have resulted in legal actions being taken against medical personnel [15]. In this regard, Pakistan is not an exception, where accusations of ethical misconduct and an increase in lawsuits against healthcare practitioners have been seen in recent years.…”

Common medical ethical issues faced by healthcare professionals in KSA

“…This has resulted in a significant deficiency in the practice of healthcare ethics on a day-to-day basis by many healthcare professionals 6, 7, 8. Furthermore, lack of knowledge and practice of medical ethics has led to legal suits against healthcare professionals 9 , 10 . This may reflect both increased public awareness of their rights as well as inappropriate practices by healthcare professionals.…”