Literature DB >> 24618906

In the eyes of the law: malpractice litigation in oculoplastic surgery.

Peter F Svider1, Danielle M Blake, Qasim Husain, Andrew C Mauro, Roger E Turbin, Jean Anderson Eloy, Paul D Langer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess characteristics associated with various outcomes of malpractice litigation, resulting from injuries sustained during oculoplastic procedures.
METHODS: The Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, U.S.A.) was used to obtain jury verdicts and settlements. Pertinent data were extracted from 69 malpractice cases litigated from 1988 to 2012 involving oculoplastic procedures, including alleged cause of malpractice, outcome, and defendant specialty.
RESULTS: The most commonly litigated surgical procedures were blepharoplasty (63.8% of total) and brow lift surgery (11.6%). The most commonly alleged complications included excessive scarring (24.6%), lagophthalmos (24.6%), visual defects (23.2%), and exposure keratitis (21.7%). Plastic surgeons were the most commonly named defendants (46.4%), followed by both comprehensive ophthalmologists and fellowship-trained ophthalmic plastic surgeons (17.3% each). A defense verdict was held in 60.9% of cases, a plaintiff verdict in 31.9% of cases, and a settlement was reached in 7.2% of cases. Blindness, cranial nerve injury, and the allegation of a permanent deficit increased the likelihood of a case being resolved with payment to the plaintiff (Fisher exact tests, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Most litigated oculoplastic malpractice cases were resolved in favor of the defendant, while settlements and plaintiff decisions averaged $455,703. Blepharoplasty constituted two-thirds of cases, with the most frequently cited associated complications being unsightly scarring, lagophthalmos, and visual deficits. An alleged lack of informed consent (30.4%) or the need for additional surgery (39.1%) was present in a considerable proportion of cases, emphasizing the importance of a detailed informed consent and clear communication preoperatively regarding patient expectations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24618906     DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0740-9303            Impact factor:   1.746


  7 in total

1.  Litigation Following Carpal Tunnel Release.

Authors:  Nishant Ganesh Kumar; Nicholas Hricz; Brian C Drolet
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-03-13

2.  Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma.

Authors:  Stephanie B Engelhard; Sherveen S Salek; Grant A Justin; Austin J Sim; Fasika A Woreta; Ashvini K Reddy
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-07-12

3.  Malpractice Litigation in Ocular Oncology.

Authors:  Stephanie B Engelhard; Mary E Aronow; Christopher T Shah; Austin J Sim; Ashvini K Reddy
Journal:  Ocul Oncol Pathol       Date:  2017-09-30

4.  Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Anesthesiology Residents: An Analysis of the National Westlaw Database.

Authors:  Feel G Kang; Mark C Kendall; Ji S Kang; Christopher J Malgieri; Gildasio S De Oliveira
Journal:  J Educ Perioper Med       Date:  2020-10-01

5.  An Analysis of Malpractice Litigation and Expert Witnesses in Plastic Surgery.

Authors:  Paul J Therattil; Stella Chung; Aditya Sood; Mark S Granick; Edward S Lee
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2017-09-28

6.  Adverse Events in Facial Implant Surgery and Associated Malpractice Litigation.

Authors:  Hani M Rayess; Peter Svider; Curtis Hanba; Vivek Sagar Patel; Michael Carron; Giancarlo Zuliani
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.611

7.  A Cross-sectional Analysis of Adverse Events and Litigation for Injectable Fillers.

Authors:  Hani M Rayess; Peter F Svider; Curtis Hanba; Vivek Sagar Patel; Louis M DeJoseph; Michael Carron; Giancarlo F Zuliani
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.611

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.