Influencing factors leading to malpractice litigation in radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Purpose: The litigious nature of the medical-legal environment is a major concern for American physicians with an estimated cost of $10 billion. In this study we identify the causes of litigation in cases of radical prostatectomy as well as the factors that contribute to verdicts or settlements resulting in indemnity payments.

Materials and methods: Publicly available verdict reports were recorded using the Westlaw® legal database. To identify pertinent cases we used the search terms "medical malpractice" and "prostate" or "prostatectomy" with dates ranging from 2000 to 2013. Cases were evaluated for alleged cause of malpractice, resulting injury, findings and indemnity payment (if any).

Results: The database search yielded 222 cases, with 25 being relevant to radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 24.0% were settled out of court and the remaining 76.0% went to trial. Of those cases that went to trial 20.8% saw patients awarded damages. There was no significant difference in awards between verdict and settlement. Overall 36.0% of patients claimed that they did not receive proper informed consent and 16.0% claimed that the surgery was not the proper standard of care. Thirteen of the cases claimed negligence in the performance of the surgery with the bulk of these claims being the result of rectal perforation.

Conclusions: The main issues that arise in radical prostatectomy malpractice litigation are those of informed consent and clinical performance. Comprehensive preoperative counseling, when combined with proper surgical technique, may minimize the impact of litigation.

Keywords: informed consent; jurisprudence; malpractice; prostatectomy.