Malpractice Litigation in Ocular Oncology

Engelhard, Stephanie B; Aronow, Mary E.; Shah, Christopher T.; Sim, Austin J.; Reddy, Ashvini K.

doi:10.1159/000479559

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This review of 44 medical malpractice cases in ophthalmic trauma draws attention to commonly litigated clinical scenarios for the purpose of improving clinical management through dedicated analysis of risk. To our knowledge, this is the only review specifically analyzing malpractice cases in ophthalmic trauma, which complements existing publications on litigation in ophthalmology, [7][8][9][10] while drawing special attention to many ophthalmic emergencies. The cases in this series represent some of the most common ophthalmic trauma scenarios, many of which often have poor outcomes due to the severe nature of these injuries, highlighting the importance of understanding the appropriate management of these conditions as well as the importance of documentation and expectation management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Query of the Westlaw ® database yielded 1261 appellate cases and 1294 jury verdicts/settlements; 1063 cases met inclusion criteria. [7][8][9][10] Forty-four ophthalmic trauma malpractice cases were identified from the database, representing 4.1% of total cases (Supplementary Table 1). The 44 ophthalmic trauma cases occurred between 1967 and 2013 ( Figure 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 The Westlaw ® database contains settlements and verdicts from a variety of insurers, providing a global picture of ophthalmology malpractice in the United States, in contrast to many other analyses of ophthalmology malpractice litigation, which present information from a single insurer. [32][33][34][35][36][37] As we have stated in other reports, [7][8][9][10] limitations of the database include the fact that out-of-court settlements and dropped cases are not included. Additionally, because our database includes eighty years of cases, it is possible that changes in technology as well as patient and physician characteristics alter the applicability of some cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It does not contain all cases of litigation performed in the United States. As described in previous publications, [7][8][9][10] the database was queried to search all US civil trials involving ophthalmologists using the search terms "ophthalmology" or "ophthalmologist" and "malpractice" anywhere in the retrieved documents. Exclusion criteria included (1) ophthalmologist named as expert witness but not defendant, and (2) filings before January 1, 1930 or after Dec 31, 2014.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

<p>Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma</p>

Engelhard

Salek

Justin

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To report and analyze the causes and outcomes of malpractice litigation in ophthalmic trauma. Methods: The Westlaw ® database was reviewed for ophthalmology litigation in the United States between 1930 and 2014. All ophthalmic trauma cases were included and compared to non-traumatic ophthalmology malpractice cases. Results: Forty-four ophthalmic trauma cases were included. Of these cases, 90.9% of ophthalmic trauma plaintiffs were male compared to 54.8% of plaintiffs in ophthalmology as a whole (P=<0.001); 34.1% of cases involved minor plaintiffs compared to 6.4% in ophthalmology as a whole (P=<0.001). Cases involving minors were more likely to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff than cases involving adult plaintiffs (53.3% vs 37.9%); however, this was not found to statistically significant (P=0.35). Overall, 54.5% of cases were resolved in favor of defendants; 40.9% of cases were resolved via jury trial with 50.0% resulting in payments to plaintiffs compared to the 29.6% rate of plaintiff verdicts in ophthalmology as a whole. Open globe injuries represented 61.4% of cases; 55.6% of these cases had intraocular foreign bodies and 37.0% developed endophthalmitis. Most cases (63.6%) alleged insufficient intervention. Of these cases, 31.8% of cases involved surgical or procedural claims, and 4.5% involved medical claims only. Conclusion: Males and minors were overrepresented among plaintiffs in ocular trauma litigation. Most cases involved open globe injuries, often complicated by retained intraocular foreign bodies and endophthalmitis. Analysis of malpractice litigation in ophthalmic trauma calls attention to commonly litigated scenarios to improve clinical practice and to inform risk management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

<p>Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma</p>

Engelhard

Salek

Justin

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These trends are consistent with the limited literature on the subject and may be secondary to improved medical care over time, increased requirement of burden of proof for the plaintiffs, and/or lead time bias. 5,20 The most common reason for a decision in favor of the defendant was that no deliberate indifference was undertaken by the prison staff/physicians (46%). This indicated that the staff/physicians acted accordingly and did not intentionally mismanage the prisoner's medical care; however, this was not a comment on the quality of provided care.…”

Section: Collateral Estoppelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision-Related Malpractice Involving Prisoners

Jeng

Bonnell

O’Neil

et al. 2022

Retina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To characterize vision-related malpractice litigation involving prisoners. Methods: Retrospective legal database review using the Westlaw database was performed to identify vision-related malpractice lawsuits involving prisoners in the United States from 1914 to 2020. Main outcomes and measurements were allegations of malpractice, verdicts, and settlements.Results: Sixty-four vision-related malpractice lawsuits involving prisoners were identified. Mean defendant age was 49 years (range, 28-74 years). Fifty-seven percent of the defendants were ophthalmologists and 43% were optometrists. The cases were most commonly from the South and Midwest (n = 19 [30%] for each). Allegations of malpractice included inadequate medical care or treatment refusal (n = 21 [33%]), failure to treat fully leading to continued suffering (n = 18 [28%]), and delay in treatment or referral (n = 17 [27%]). Retina-related diagnoses were most common (n = 18 [28%]). Forty-six (72%) cases were closed, 14 (22%) were open, and four (6.3%) were partially closed. Only two (3.1%) cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff. The most common reason for an unsuccessful suit was lack of deliberate indifference by the eye care professional (n = 21 [46%]). Conclusion:The most common reasons for vision-related malpractice brought forth by prisoners were inadequate or incomplete eye care and treatment refusal. Retina was the most commonly involved subspecialty. However, the success rate of these suits was extremely low.

show abstract

Orthopedic Surgeons at Greater Risk of Malpractice Claims for Treatment of Primary Malignant Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Compared With Metastatic Bone Disease

Bayram,

Oduncu,

Beşkoç

et al. 2024

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine cases of malpractice litigation in primary sarcoma and metastatic bone disease in orthopedic oncology, to identify the areas in which orthopedic surgeons may be guilty of negligence, and to make them aware of this.MethodsA comprehensive examination was conducted on all closed medical malpractice cases involving bone and soft tissue malignant tumors from 2014 to 2024. Patient demographics, histopathological diagnosis, and malpractice claims made in a variety of specialties were recorded. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study resulted in the inclusion of 70 cases of primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma and 36 cases of metastatic bone disease.ResultsA total of 47 primary tumors were bone sarcoma and 23 were soft tissue sarcoma. A total of 11 patients with primary sarcoma were accepted for malpractice claims, representing 16% of all cases within this category. Nevertheless, no evidence of malpractice was identified among the patients with metastatic bone disease (p = 0.012). Orthopedists (44 of 85 defendants), pathologists (14 of 85 defendants), and radiologists (7 of 85 defendants) were the most common defendants in primary sarcoma malpractice cases. Surgeons other than orthopedists (21 of 49 defendants), medical oncologists (4 of 49 defendants), and radiation oncologists (4 of 49 defendants) were the most common defendants in metastatic bone disease malpractice cases.ConclusionAnalysis of our cases suggests that malpractice claims are more likely filed against orthopedic surgeons for the treatment of primary malignant bone and soft tissue tumors than for metastatic bone disease.

show abstract

Malpractice Litigation in Ocular Oncology

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

<p>Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma</p>

<p>Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma</p>

Vision-Related Malpractice Involving Prisoners

Orthopedic Surgeons at Greater Risk of Malpractice Claims for Treatment of Primary Malignant Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Compared With Metastatic Bone Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About