Literature DB >> 7551325

Malpractice litigation involving patients with carcinoma of the breast.

J S Mitnick1, M F Vazquez, S Z Kronovet, D F Roses.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate recent trends in the United States of America regarding malpractice awards for patients with carcinoma of the breast. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of 118 cases of purported malpractice in the diagnosis and management of patients with carcinoma of the breast and related problems. The information was tabulated from Westlaw Transmission, a computerized database.
RESULTS: Gynecologists were the specialists most often sued and accounted for 47 percent of the physicians involved in lawsuits. Radiologists were cited in only 13 percent of the cases. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) were cited in 5 percent of the cases. The most common complaint was delay in diagnosis, made by a plaintiff who detected her own breast mass (52 percent). In 15 percent of the cases, the plaintiffs complained that a mammogram was not obtained, and 9 percent complained that other diagnostic tests, such as ultrasound or fine-needle aspiration biopsy, were not performed. The average delay in diagnosis was 14 months. The average award to plaintiffs with carcinoma of the breast was $691,449. The average plaintiff's age was 44 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Most malpractice complaints related to carcinoma of the breast are instituted by women under the age of 50 years who identified the breast mass by themselves and were assumed by their physicians to have fibrocystic disease of the breast. Complaints can be expected to increase regarding failure to order further diagnostic tests, such as ultrasound or fine-needle aspiration biopsy, despite a negative mammogram. Complaints against HMOs are now also being made, citing failure to properly diagnose or treat patients with carcinoma of the breast.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7551325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  6 in total

1.  Uncovering malpractice in appendectomies: a review of 234 cases.

Authors:  Amad J Choudhry; Seema P Anandalwar; Asad J Choudhry; Peter F Svider; Joseph O Oliver; Jean Anderson Eloy; Ravi J Chokshi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Esophageal perforation and rupture: a comprehensive medicolegal examination of 59 jury verdicts and settlements.

Authors:  Peter F Svider; Anna A Pashkova; Gian-Paul Vidal; Andrew C Mauro; Jean Anderson Eloy; Ravi J Chokshi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Marrying Story with Science: The Impact of Outdated and Inconsistent Breast Cancer Screening Practices in Canada.

Authors:  Jennie Dale; Michelle Di Tomaso; Victoria Gay
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 3.109

5.  Stereotactic fine-needle aspiration biopsy for the evaluation of nonpalpable breast lesions: report of an experience based on 2,988 cases.

Authors:  J S Mitnick; M F Vazquez; P I Pressman; M N Harris; D F Roses
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Delay in diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  P I Tartter; D Pace; M Frost; J L Bernstein
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 12.969

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.