Laryngology litigation in the United States: Thirty years in review
- PMID: 26763607
- DOI: 10.1002/lary.25866
Laryngology litigation in the United States: Thirty years in review
Abstract
Objectives/hypothesis: Malpractice claims pertaining to laryngology procedures are a potentially important source of information that could be used to minimize the risk of future litigation and improve patient care.
Study design: A retrospective review of two publicly available databases containing jury verdicts and settlements.
Methods: The LexisNexis Jury Verdicts and Settlements and WestlawNext legal databases were reviewed for all lawsuits and out-of-court adjudications related to the practice of laryngology. Data including patient demographics, type of surgery performed, plaintiff allegation, nature of injury, outcomes, and indemnities were collected and analyzed.
Results: Of 87 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 56 were decided by a jury and 31 were adjudicated out of court. Vocal cord surgery was the most commonly litigated surgery. The two most commonly cited legal allegations were physical injury and negligence. No statistical difference for legal outcome was found when death or vocal cord injuries occurred. Complications in procedures that utilized a laser predicted an unfavorable outcome (P = 0.013). A payout was made in over one-half of cases, but defendants were favored in over two-thirds of cases decided by a jury. The average indemnities were significant for both jury verdicts ($4.6 million) and out-of-court settlements ($0.9 million).
Conclusion: An awareness of laryngology malpractice litigation has the potential to provide better patient care and help laryngologists avoid potential risks for litigation. The factors determining legal responsibility in laryngology cases underscore the importance of close communication with anesthesiologists and careful evaluation of hoarseness in all patients regardless of risk factors.
Level of evidence: N/A. Laryngoscope, 126:2301-2304, 2016.
Keywords: Laryngology; malpractice; negligence.
© 2016 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Similar articles
-
Rhinology and medical malpractice: An update of the medicolegal landscape of the last ten years.Laryngoscope. 2016 Jan;126(1):14-9. doi: 10.1002/lary.25533. Epub 2015 Aug 8. Laryngoscope. 2016. PMID: 26256664
-
Dizziness, malpractice, and the otolaryngologist.Am J Otolaryngol. 2017 Jul-Aug;38(4):401-404. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Mar 31. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017. PMID: 28390810
-
Sleep surgery and medical malpractice.Laryngoscope. 2014 Jun;124(6):E250-4. doi: 10.1002/lary.24559. Epub 2014 Jan 17. Laryngoscope. 2014. PMID: 24347364
-
A Review of Otolaryngology Malpractice Cases with Associated Court Proceedings from 2010 to 2019.Laryngoscope. 2021 Apr;131(4):E1081-E1085. doi: 10.1002/lary.29232. Epub 2020 Nov 4. Laryngoscope. 2021. PMID: 33146898 Review.
-
Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Surgery: Malpractice Litigation Outcomes.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 Jan;54(1):75-79. doi: 10.1597/15-285. Epub 2016 Feb 16. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017. PMID: 26882025 Review.
Cited by
-
Otorhinolaryngology litigations in Japan.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Oct;276(10):2947-2951. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05561-y. Epub 2019 Jul 18. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019. PMID: 31321501
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials