The Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Litigation

1989 ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
James R. Vevaina ◽  
Leonard L. Finz
2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191
Author(s):  
Timothy Craig Allen

Abstract The various methods used by risk managers to assist clinicians in handling medicolegal risk, including improving communication with patients and better dealing with medical records issues, are not particularly of benefit to pathologists. An understanding of tort law, the theory of negligence, the principle of standard of care, and the role of the expert witness helps the pathologist generally assess and manage risk and put it into context with daily pathology practice. An understanding of the litigation process and techniques to better handle a deposition and high-risk specimens or diagnoses are of practical value in avoiding a lawsuit or increasing the likelihood for good outcome in medical malpractice litigation.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 484-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Johnston ◽  
Thomas P. Sartwelle

2012 ◽  
Vol 172 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupam B. Jena ◽  
Amitabh Chandra ◽  
Darius Lakdawalla ◽  
Seth Seabury

1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-463
Author(s):  
Frances H. Miller

AbstractMedical malpractice claims are filed nearly ten times more frequently in America than they are in Great Britain. British patients generally adopt a less adversarial stance toward medical malpractice than do American patients. This Article examines the British malpractice system, as compared with the American system, and explores the differences between the two, in terms of costs and fees, liability rules, statutory provisions, and judicial attitudes toward malpractice litigation. The Article also discusses British social and institutional factors, such as the “taint” of litigation and the National Health Service, and evaluates how these factors affect British malpractice litigation. The Article presents the alternative forums available to British patients in seeking satisfaction for their medical service complaints. The Article concludes with an evaluation of how these factors achieve the three societal objectives of malpractice litigation: reparation, emotional vindication and deterrence.


2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 584-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Dawson ◽  
Eric M. Kraus

Background Physicians facing malpractice litigation are in uncharted territory. The language, concepts, rules, and strategies of the legal system are foreign to science-based physicians. Understanding the statistics of rhinology malpractice litigation may aid the physician to cope with the assault of a claim. Methods Information from the 2006 Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA) and the 2006 PIAA Risk Management Report (RMR)–Otorhinolaryngology were searched for claims data referable to the nose, nasal chamber, and paranasal sinuses. The PIAA data sharing report (DSR) is the largest single resource of malpractice claims data containing both settlement and trial judgment information. Results The nose, nasal cavity, and paranasal sinuses represent nearly two-thirds of the total indemnity paid for improper performance from otolaryngology head and neck surgery (Oto-HNS) medical malpractice claims between 1985 and 2005 based on claims information. Improper performance accounts for 50.3% of total monies paid ($107.6 million of $213.6 million) to resolve Oto-HNS claims in this period. Of nearly 2400 operative claims closed in the period of 1985–2005, 34.1% involved procedures on the nose and sinuses. In the past 6 years, $103.5 million indemnity has been added to the otolaryngology total. Conclusion The area of endoscopic sinus surgery has substantially contributed to Oto-HNS claims in the PIAA DSR. Despite malpractice being a cost of medical practice, every claim is perceived as an assault on the surgeon's competence. Ensuring informed consent and complete documentation may assist the provider in defending their care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document