Medical malpractice litigations involving aortic dissection
- PMID: 33229180
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.10.064
Medical malpractice litigations involving aortic dissection
Abstract
Objectives: Medical malpractice litigation arises when a discrepancy exists between a patient's expectation of acceptable medical care and the care the patient receives. Aortic dissection is a frequently misdiagnosed and often-fatal condition. The purpose of this study was to characterize trends of medical malpractice litigations arising from aortic dissection, investigate the etiology, and analyze predictive factors regarding the verdict.
Methods: The Westlaw legal database was used to compile relevant litigations from 1994 to 2019 across the United States. Each litigation was screened individually for inclusion, and after inclusion, descriptive factors were compiled, including patient data, litigation data, verdict data, and clinical outcomes data. The Fisher exact test was used to evaluate the significance of association between parameters and verdict type.
Results: In total, 135 unique litigations met criteria for inclusion, with a defendant verdict in 57% (n = 77), plaintiff verdict in 20% (n = 27), and settlements in 23% (n = 31). Plaintiffs most commonly cited a failure to diagnose as their reason for litigation in 64% (n = 87). Patient mortality was associated with a lower average plaintiff award, $1,892,781 versus $5,944,983, and a lower average settlement, $1,230,923 versus $2,250,000, than their surviving counterparts. California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania had the most cases filed. An alleged failure to test, failure to refer, failure to consult, incidence of a stroke, and incidence of an autopsy diagnosis were significantly associated with defendant verdicts and a failure to diagnose was significantly associated with plaintiff verdicts (P < .05).
Conclusions: Plaintiffs frequently cited a failure to timely diagnose, order diagnostic tests, and interpret diagnostic tests as reasons for litigations. Defendant verdicts were common, suggesting judicially acceptable standards of care are commonly satisfied.
Keywords: aortic dissection; cardiothoracic surgery; medical malpractice.
Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Commentary: Medical malpractice litigation for aortic dissection: Heads they win; tails we lose.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Aug;164(2):609-610. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.10.115. Epub 2020 Nov 5. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. PMID: 33277022 No abstract available.
-
Commentary: Ambushed by a snow leopard: Malpractice litigations involving aortic dissection.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Aug;164(2):610-611. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.10.114. Epub 2020 Nov 5. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. PMID: 33277028 No abstract available.
-
Reply: Medicolegal research: A key to the locked door of patient expectations.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Aug;164(2):e96-e97. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.088. Epub 2021 Jan 27. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. PMID: 33516460 No abstract available.
-
Malpractice litigation: The unmeasured complication.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Aug;164(2):e95. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.055. Epub 2021 Feb 25. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. PMID: 33640123 No abstract available.
-
Commentary: Malpractice litigation and acute aortic dissection: What are the odds?J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Aug;164(2):611-612. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.06.051. Epub 2021 Jun 29. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. PMID: 34417048 No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Miscellaneous