Reasons for Litigation in Arthroplasty Infections and Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Infections complicate a minority of orthopaedic arthroplasties but are the leading cause of malpractice claims. The basis for the claims is unclear. The objective of this study was to identify the main deviations from current recommendations by reviewing patient files recorded by a major French medical liability-specialized insurance company for private practitioners (MACSF [Mutuelle d'Assurance du Corps de Santé Français]) and to analyze legal claims and outcomes of litigation. METHODS: All claims data for periprosthetic joint infections were analyzed retrospectively from 2010 to 2014. Treatment strategies were compared with therapeutic guidelines published by medical societies. RESULTS: Forty-five claims for periprosthetic joint infection were recorded; 82% of patients were men and the mean patient age was 63 years. Twenty-one patients (47%) had a knee arthroplasty, 21 had a hip arthroplasty, 2 had a shoulder arthroplasty, and 1 had an ankle arthroplasty. Twenty-three infections (51%) occurred within 1 month postoperatively. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from intraoperative samples in 36% of the cases (including 25% of these with methicillin-resistant strains), and coagulase-negative staphylococci were isolated in 51% (44% methicillin-resistant strains) of the cases. Treatment lasted for a median of 9.5 months (range, 1.5 to 96 months), with a median of 6 months (range, 1.5 to 20 months) of antibiotics and 3 surgical procedures (range, 0 to 7 surgical procedures). A total of 18% of patients had antibiotic-related side effects, 2% of patients died, and 76% of patients had persistent sequelae. An infectious disease specialist's advice was required for 56% of the patients. Discordances with therapeutic guidelines were found in 76% of the patient files, including delay in diagnosis (44%) and inadequate medical treatment (18%) or medico-surgical treatment (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Late diagnosis of early postoperative infections appears to be the major cause of inappropriate management and malpractice litigation. Discordance with current guidelines was identified. Early consultation with an infectious disease specialist may help to reduce malpractice claims. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trends and Risk Factors in Orthopedic Lawsuits: Analysis of a National Legal Database.

Orthopedic surgeons frequently encounter medical malpractice claims. The purpose of this study was to assess trends and risk factors in lawsuits brought against orthopedic surgeons using a national legal database. A legal research service was used to search publicly available settlement and verdict reports between 1988 and 2013 by terms "orthopaedic or orthopedic" and "malpractice." Temporal trends were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for case outcomes. A total of 1562 publicly reported malpractice cases brought against orthopedic surgeons, proceeding to trial during a 26-year period, were analyzed. The plaintiffs won 462 (30%) cases, with a mean award of $1.4 million. The frequency of litigation and pay-outs for plaintiffs increased 215% and 280%, respectively, between the first and last 5-year periods. The mean payout for plaintiff-favorable verdicts was highest in pediatrics ($2.6 million), followed by spine ($1.7 million) and oncology ($1.6 million). Fracture fixation (363 cases), arthroplasty (290 cases), and spine (231 cases) were the most commonly litigated procedures, while plaintiffs were most successful for fasciotomy (48%), infection-treating procedures (43%), and carpal tunnel release (37%). When analyzing data by state and region, adjusted for population, northeastern states had a higher frequency of lawsuits. Malpractice liability has increased during the past 3 decades while orthopedic surgeons continue to win most of the cases making it to court. As patients search for medical care via publicly available information, it is important for orthopedic surgeons to understand what aspects of their own practice carry different risks of litigation. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(2):e260-e267.].

Medical Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery: A Westlaw-Based Demographic Analysis.

A recent study that evaluated the risk of facing a malpractice claim by physician specialty found that orthopedic surgeons were at a significantly greater risk of being sued than other medical specialists. To date, no studies have characterized trends in orthopedic surgery malpractice claims. The Westlaw legal database was used to locate state and federal jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice and orthopedic surgery from 2010 to 2016. Eighty-one cases were analyzed. The mean age of the affected patients and/or plaintiffs was 53.4 years. Spine surgery (21 cases; 25.9%), knee surgery (17 cases; 21.0%), and hip surgery (11 cases; 13.6%) were litigated most often. Procedural error (71 cases; 87.7%) and negligence (58 cases; 71.6%) were the 2 most commonly cited reasons for litigation. The jury found in favor of the defendant in most (50 cases; 61.7%) of the cases. The mean plaintiff (17 cases; 21.0%) verdict payout was $3,015,872, and the mean settlement (13 cases; 16.0%) value was $1,570,833. Unnecessary surgery (odds ratio [OR], 12.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-108.46; P=.040) and surgery resulting in death (OR, 26.26; 95% CI, 2.55-497.42; P=.040) were significant predictors of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Patient death (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.38; P=.021) and male patient sex (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; P=.033) were significant negative predictors of a verdict in favor of the defendant. The jury found in favor of the defendant orthopedic surgeon in most cases. Procedural error and/or negligence were cited most commonly by the plaintiffs as the bases for the claims. Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs resulted in payouts nearly double those of settlements. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):e615-e620.].

A Comparison of Defense and Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in Orthopaedic Surgery Malpractice Litigation.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. METHODS: Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witness's subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides. CONCLUSIONS: Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.

Descriptive Analysis of State and Federal Spine Surgery Malpractice Litigation in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the factors associated with malpractice litigation in cases involving spine surgery in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medical malpractice is of substantial interest to the medical community due to concerns of increased health care costs and medical decision-making for the sole purpose of reducing legal liability. METHODS: The Westlaw online legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) was searched for verdict and settlement reports pertaining to spine surgery from 2010 to 2015. Data were collected regarding type of procedure, patient age and gender, defendant specialty, outcome, award, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors involved in the plaintiff's decision to file. Initial search queried 187 cases, after which exclusion criteria were applied to eliminate duplicates and cases unrelated to spine surgery, yielding a total of 98 cases for analysis. RESULTS: The verdict was in favor of the defendant in 62 cases (63.3%). Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons were the most common defendants in 29 (17.3%) and 40 (23.8%) of the cases, respectively. A perceived lack of informed consent was noted as a factor in 24 (24.4%) of the cases. A failure to diagnose or a failure to treat was noted in 31 (31.6%) and 32 (32.7%) cases, respectively. Median payments for plaintiff verdicts were nearly double those of settlements ($2,525,000 vs. $1,300,000). A greater incidence of plaintiff verdicts was noted in cases in which a failure to treat (P < 0.05) was cited, a patient death occurred (P < 0.05), or an emergent surgery had been performed (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, physicians were not found liable in the majority of spine surgery malpractice cases queried. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

[Current SHI physician legislation: succession rules for surgical seats : Surgical vacancies can be filled with orthopedic/trauma surgery specialists only within narrow limits]. / Aktuelles Vertragsarztrecht: Nachfolge bei Chirurgensitzen : Nachbesetzung einer chirurgischen Zulassung durch Fachärzte für Orthopädie/Unfallchirurgie nur in engen Grenzen.

It is a physician's certified continuing medical education category-rather than their actual medical activity, in this case in the field of trauma surgery-that is decisive in filling statutory health insurance (SHI) practice vacancies. This evaluation arising from §16 of the requirement planning guideline applies accordingly when filling physician vacancies. Thus physician vacancies or statutory health insurance (SHI) practice places can only be filled by a physician in the same physician group in line with requirement planning. Scope for argumentation initially remains in the context of filling surgical SHI physician vacancies where the ceding physician is certified as an accident insurance consultant.