Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 8;2(3):100032.
doi: 10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100032. Epub 2021 Apr 5.

Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine

Affiliations

Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine

Jennifer K Wagner et al. HGG Adv. .

Abstract

As genomic medicine expands, interest in how medical malpractice law will apply to such questions as whether and when to return new or updated genomic results has grown. Given that access to some genomic results (such as those pertaining to minors or those for which scientific interpretations are unsettled) is delayed for years, the "loss of chance" (LOC) doctrine is of particular potential relevance. Yet it has received relatively little attention among scholars of law and genomics. We performed legal research to determine the status of this malpractice doctrine across the United States and consider its potential applicability to genomic medicine. We further examined known genomic medicine malpractices to assess whether this doctrine had yet been invoked in that context. We identified a trend toward adoption of the LOC doctrine, finding 29 states (58%) have adopted, 15 states (30%) have rejected, and six states (12%) have deferred or not yet addressed the doctrine. Attempts to invoke or apply the doctrine in the known genomic medical malpractice cases were also found. While our findings do not provide cause for substantial concern, the availability of the LOC medical malpractice doctrine is a potentially important factor to consider when making programmatic decisions for genomic medicine. Future research examining whether liability risks posed by this doctrine prompt defensive medicine practices would be useful.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests Both J.K.W. and M.N.M. are employed by Geisinger, an integrated health care system where genomic medicine is practiced; however, they are research faculty and are not affiliated with the institution’s legal department or delivery of care. J.K.W. has a part-time private law practice in Pennsylvania, but this practice does not involve medical malpractice work. J.K.W. is also an academic affiliate of Anthropology at Penn State University. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The status of the “loss of chance” (LOC) doctrine Dark blue shading indicates the LOC doctrine has been adopted. Light blue shading indicates the LOC doctrine has been rejected. Grey shading indicates the LOC doctrine has been deferred or has not yet been addressed.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Jurisdictions in which genomic malpractice cases have been decided. Status is current through December 31, 2016.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Number of genomic malpractice cases decided within each jurisdiction Status is current through December 31, 2016. Grey shading indicates zero cases. Lavender shading indicates one case. Blue shading indicates between two and five cases. Green shading indicates between six and 10 cases. Yellow shading indicates between 11 and 15 cases. Peach shading indicates between 16 and 20 cases. Red shading indicates more than 20 cases.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Marchant G.E., Lindor R.A. Genomic malpractice: an emerging tide or gentle ripple? Food Drug Law J. 2018;73:1–36.
    1. Marchant G., LeRoy B., Clatch L., Clayton E.W. Unjust timing limitations in genetic malpractice cases. Albany Law Rev. 2020;83:61–87.
    1. Stevens Y.A., Senner G.D., Marchant G.E. Physicians’ duty to recontact and update genetic advice. Per. Med. 2017;14:367–374. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Giesbertz N.A.A., van Harten W.H., Bredenoord A.L. A duty to recontact in genetics: context matters. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019;20:371–372. - PubMed
    1. Knoppers B.M., Thorogood A., Zawati M.H. Letter: Relearning the 3 R’s? Reinterpretation, recontact, and return of genetic variants. Genet. Med. 2019;21:2401–2402. - PubMed