PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Litigation”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,783 records · Page 99Linked to original sources

[Obstetrics in crisis].

Obstetrical practice in France is in a crisis with several components. The number of obstetricians is in sharp reduction, a litigation crisis is obvious, an important number of for profit maternity units disappeared since five years for financial reasons. To rebuild an adapted system, one should be aware of the wills of obstetricians in training about the minimal number of members of any obstetrical team to share the on call duty (7 to 8). It will be difficult to resolve the litigation crisis, some tools are available such as quality audits systems among professionals (quality circles), and those professional groups could induce a renewed relationship with the insurers trough group contracts.

France↗

Out-patient chronic pain service in Hong Kong: prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the profile and referral pattern of patients attending an out-patient pain management service in Hong Kong. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Regional public hospitals, Hong Kong. PATIENTS: All patients attending out-patient pain management clinics in the New Territories East public hospitals between 1 September and 31 December 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic profiles, referring specialty, pain diagnosis, pain sites, duration and severity of pain, treatment modality, litigation, compensation, and social welfare status. Data were collected using a standardised questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight patients were interviewed. Most patients (70%) were middle-aged, with 21% over 60 years. Seventy-nine percent of patients were referred to the clinics either from orthopaedic surgeons (64.1%), general and other surgeons (14.9%), or general practitioners (3.6%). The median (range) duration of pain was 2.3 (0.08-26.7) years. The most common pain diagnoses were musculoskeletal back pain (46.4%) and neuropathic pain (27.8%). A total of 11.3% of the patients had two pain diagnoses, while 40.7% complained of pain in more than one location. Pain in the limbs was the most frequent complaint followed by the head, neck, and back. Approximately 38% of patients had tried four or more treatment modalities. Oral medication was the most common method (86.7%) of pain-relief treatment. More than half of the patients had also tried physiotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine. Approximately 37% of the patients were unemployed, while 31% were receiving social security subsidy. Eighty-six patients had pain associated with a work-related injury, and of these patients, 80% were involved in compensation claims. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of patients referred to the pain management clinics was complex. Patients were mainly referred from specialists. The economic implication in this group of patients is likely to be significant as many patients utilised multiple treatment modalities, were unemployed and on social welfare benefits, and were involved in compensation and litigation proceedings.

Chronic Disease↗

Ambulatory surgery centers--current legal issues 2004 (Part 2).

This article covers several of the emerging issues related to ASCs, the anti-kickback statute and safe harbors, other regulations and relevant court decisions. The ASC Safe Harbors raise several concerns either because they are vague, silent, or provide little guidance as to their requirements. Perhaps the most challenging question under the ASC safe harbor relates to the handling of physicians who do not comply with the various safe harbor tests. As discussed, an ASC should address early on whether physicians who fail to meet or comply with the safe harbor will be redeemed from the venture. In redeeming such physicians, it is important to consider whether the company's operating agreement or shareholder agreement provides for redemption upon such event and whether the redemption will lead to litigation or compliance risks. Along the same lines, since it is illegal to provide any form of value in exchange for referrals under the anti-kickback statute, share sales at below fair market value may be viewed as an illegal kickback in exchange for referrals. Thus, in terms of adding physician owners, a number of guidelines should be followed. An ASC should also carefully consider situations in which it waives or discounts co-payments or deductibles. The safest course for a provider remains to collect the entire co-payment and deductible amounts from patients. Moreover, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid patients, an ASC should never waive or discount co-payments and deductibles unless the patient demonstrates financial hardship. Either way, such a waiver or discount should only be in accord with an applicable charity care or discount policy. A new issue involving the anti-kickback statue, state and federal self referral laws, and Medicare regulations, has gained attention as ASCs are increasingly finding themselves approached by third party vendors to enter into an arrangement, where the vendor owns the equipment and bills a third-party payor for the technical component of the procedure performed with the equipment, and the vendor then pays the ASC a fee for its lease of ASC space to house the equipment. These types of relationships can raise several legal compliance concerns. An ASC should understand that the arrangement could jeopardize its state ASC license and its Medicare certification even though the arrangement does not involve Medicare certified procedures or Medicare patients. Furthermore, this type of business venture might not comply with state and federal self referral laws. ASCs are also increasingly facing situations where a provider performs a procedure for which there is no facility charge for the ASC, but the physician is receiving a professional fee from Medicare. In this situation, ASCs should implement a policy, similar to the example provided in this article, to avoid even the appearance of providing an inducement or reward for referrals of Medicare or Medicaid business by requiring physicians to pay the Center a fee, consistent with fair market value, for the use of the Center for non-Covered Procedures or for performing multiple procedures within the same operative session. Lastly, as touched upon by this article, in the joint venture context, ASCs must take into account several guidelines in order to steer clear from risks associated with tax-exempt entities as an investor and antitrust price fixing issues. Whether a joint venture, of which a tax exempt entity is an investor, is deemed organized and operated in furtherance of the charitable purposes of a tax-exempt partner as set forth in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Generally, a joint venture will satisfy the guidelines if the tax-exempt investor in the joint venture retains sufficient control over the joint venture to ensure that the joint venture furthers the charitable purposes of the tax-exempt investor and adequately serves the community. In the ASC physician hospital joint venture arena, the principal antitrust concern relates to potential claims of price fixing. Where a hospital is a partner in a joint venture, the hospital and joint venture must take action to assure that the pricing and negotiations of the hospital and the ASC are handled separately. In all of these situations, ASCs and their investors must pay close attention and stay current of the safe harbor concepts, as well as the other regulations, guidelines, and court decisions discussed in this article in order to avoid potential regulatory and litigation risks.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗

The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.

For the past decade, federal judges have been obligated to serve as gatekeepers and keep scientifically unreliable and irrelevant expert testimony out of the courtroom. The exacting evidentiary standards set forth in the landmark Daubert decision have had a significant impact on numerous areas of legal dispute. Toxic tort litigation, in particular, has been transformed by the standards. This Article reviews the Supreme Court's adoption of the scientific method as the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. It analyzes how a court's proper understanding of the scientific method can guide it in evaluating the different types of causation evidence presented in toxic tort litigation, both with respect to general and specific causation. Throughout this discussion and in the concluding section, the Article reflects the authors' firm's experience as national defense counsel in a series of product liability cases involving the prescription drug Parlodel, in which these evidentiary issues have been analyzed extensively.

Animals↗

Validity of psychotraumatic reactions.

To determine whether posttraumatic reactions occurred in injured individuals not confronted with litigation or compensation (as reckoned in the U.S.), a parallel study was undertaken in a social-democratic country (Austria) between ski- and work-injured groups. Although each group had a significantly different way of regarding the injury, there appeared to be a comparable incidence of posttraumatic psychiatric reaction in each. The absence of compensation (in contrast to disability maintenance) did not inhibit the appearance of the posttraumatic reaction. A discussion of the effects of compensation and litigation pointed out the separate nature of the problems associated with these two aspects of dealing with injury, with those problems being imposed upon, but not causative of, the posttraumatic psychiatric reaction.

Accidents, Occupational↗

[Evidence-based medicine and public health law: statutory health insurance].

Beyond all differences in terminology and legal principles between the laws governing private health insurance, the governmental financial support for civil, servants and statutory health insurance the fundamental issues to be solved by the courts in case of litigation are quite similar. But only a part of these refer to the quality of medical services, which is the main concern of Evidence-based Medicine (EbM); EbM, though, is not able to contribute towards answering the equally important question of how to distinguish between "treatment" and "(health-relevant) lifestyle". The respective definitions that have been developed in the particular fields of law are only seemingly divergent from each other and basically unsuitable to aid the physician in his clinical decision-making because the common blanket clauses of public health law are regularly interpreted as rules for the exclusion of certain claims and not as a confirmatory paraphrase of what is clinically necessary. If on the other hand medical quality is what lies at the core of litigation, reference to EbM may become necessary. In fact, it is already common practice in the statutory health insurance system that decision-making processes in the Federal Committee being responsible for quality assurance (Bundesausschuss) are based on EbM principles and that in exceptional cases only the courts have to medically review the Federal Committee's decisions.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

The economic consequences of medical injuries. Implications for a no-fault insurance plan.

BACKGROUND: There has been little research into the actual economic consequences of medical injuries. This inhibits informed discussion of alternatives to malpractice litigation. For example, the cost of no-fault medical accident insurance has been thought to be prohibitive. METHOD: As part of a comprehensive analysis of medical injury and litigation, we interviewed a random sample of 794 individuals who had suffered medical adverse events in New York hospitals in 1984 and used their responses to calculate the cost of injuries. We then estimated the costs of a simulated no-fault insurance program that would operate as a second payer to direct insurance sources and would compensate for all financial losses attributed to medical injury. RESULTS: The estimated costs that would be paid by a simulated no-fault program were $161 million for medical care, $276 million for lost wages, and $441 million in lost household production, or a total of $878 million in 1989 dollars for the cohort of patients who were injured in 1984. CONCLUSION: Although our estimate does not include administrative costs, it nonetheless indicates that a no-fault program would not be notably costlier than the more than $1 billion New York physicians now spend annually on malpractice insurance.

Adult↗

Analysis of lawsuits against general surgeons in Connecticut during the years 1985 to 1990.

This study examines 42 lawsuits brought against general surgeons in Connecticut to discern which complications most often result in litigation, and what other activity prompts litigation. Analysis reveals that most cases involve injury to surrounding tissues: nerves, blood vessels, or adjacent organs. Retained foreign bodies occurred in four cases. The remaining complications concern singular complaints or iatrogenic injuries such as a Bovie burn, incorrect incisions, biopsy of incorrect tissue, etc. In addition to acute complications, four cases alleged failure to diagnose cancer and four cases alleged failure to provide informed consent. In five cases, the patient died, allegedly from the incident at issue in the suit. The study concludes that most surgical injuries are identifiable and preventible, and that many suits could be avoided.

Connecticut↗

Admissibility of scientific evidence in courts.

In its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated an entirely new set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In its 1999 Kumho Tire v. Carmichael opinion, the Court extended Daubert's general holding to include non-scientific expert testimony as well. Most modem litigation relies upon the testimony of experts and this testimony can play a dispositive role in litigation. In all parts of the case, liability, causation and damages, lawyers are winning cases by using newly available techniques, suggested by Daubert and Kumho Tire, to exclude the expert testimony that links damages to the act or omission for which their client has been found liable. Our article contains medico-legal analysis of cases, beginning in the application of Israeli case law which discusses the Daubert Court's holding and explaining the scientific principles that the Court cites. The Daubert introduction links to a brief discussion of the Court's 1999 extension of Daubert to non-scientific testimony. We present a two-part model for evaluating the admissibility of scientific evidence--internal and external--in the Israeli courts. The internal examination of the scientific evidence evaluates its reliability by examining the content of the evidence and by checking that its conclusions correspond to the research methods of scientific literature. The court also has to review the abilities and skills of the expert witness. If the evidence passes the internal evaluation, the court will apply an external evaluation by examining whether the scientific evidence coincides with the other evidence presented to the court according to the specific rules of the law applied to the particular case.

Disclosure↗

Minimizing liability risks of head and neck injuries in football.

Although catastrophic head and neck injuries in football occur infrequently, their occurrence is almost always followed by litigation. The athletic trainer has to be sure he/she has adequate liability insurance to cover the costs of a defense and a possible judgment. General claims filed against athletic staffs usually deal with instruction, equipment, matching of participants, supervision, and/or postinjury care. The defenses to these claims include: statutory immunity, assumption of risk, releases or waivers, and the reckless disregard standard. The athletic trainer plays a key role in head and neck injury prevention and care, and must be aware of litigation possibilities, along with methods of risk management. We present recommendations aimed at minimizing the risk of head and neck injuries and the risk of liability. The areas covered are: preparing for head and neck lawsuits, preventing head and neck injuries, and postcatastrophic injury care. We base these recommendations on principles that the athletic trainer can easily apply to other areas, broadening the risk management concept presented.

Journal Article↗

Incorporating problem-based learning exercises into an environmental health curriculum.

Environmental health professionals are often confronted with difficult conflicts involving multiple stakeholders. A problem-based-learning approach was used to engage students in a mock conflict resolution exercise involving the heavily publicized dispute over industrial contamination of an aquifer supplying drinking water to neighborhoods in Woburn, Massachusetts. This dispute provided the basis for the bestselling novel A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, as well as a major motion picture bearing the same name. Students were assigned to one of three stakeholder groups: the affected families, an industry consortium, or state and federal regulatory authorities. These stakeholder groups were then directed to participate in alternative-dispute-resolution mock negotiations, with the course instructor serving as a neutral facilitator. The "problem" the students were assigned was to reach a consent agreement that was acceptable to all three stakeholder groups. Two groups of undergraduate students (from different semesters) successfully completed all five phases of this endeavor, with nearly unanimous agreement that the approach was more rapid and potentially less expensive than the civil-litigation process portrayed in the book and movie. The alternative-dispute-resolution approach also provided a less adversarial environment, thereby allowing the industry and community groups to work together to forge a more creative, long-term agreement than that which resulted from the actual civil litigation.

Curriculum↗

The role of risk management in reducing costs and increasing patient safety.

In the last few years risk managers have been very frustrated with the high costs, or sheer unavailability, of medical malpractice insurance. The frustration is very understandable, given the rising financial costs of litigation for medical negligence. This presentation will aim to recommend a way out of this conundrum which works equally well regardless of whether the prevailing litigation environment be high or low, or one which is a fault-based or no-fault based compensation system, or whether a conventional insurance, self-insurance, or pooled risk insurance scheme. This paper will seek further to recommend that it's time risk managers took more responsibility themselves for reducing medical errors and optimising their control of risk. By understanding the concept of Total Cost of Risk, risk managers would be able to reduce losses, relying less on the insurance market, and accept responsibility for risk themselves, and, as a result, lowering insurance premiums in the process as the risk will have been taken away from insurance underwriters.

Cost Control↗

Managed care under fire.

A recent flurry of activity in terms of litigation and legislation involving the managed care industry has produced mixed results. Common trends among actions include delayed or diminished payment and network termination, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence in plan administration, breach of contract and fraud, and prompt pay among physician cases, among plan member cases, and among regulatory enforcement cases. The results indicate that physicians face an uphill battle in their efforts to sue managed care organizations for financial causes, although they generally fare better if state regulators adopt their cause; plan members are somewhat more successful than providers, particularly in situations where an alleged denial of care results in injury; by far, the most successful litigant against managed care has been state enforcement agencies, as the states have been particularly successful in actions enforcing their prompt payment regulations. However, the managed care industry has done well in warding off suits against plan members under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's pre-emption provisions. Despite the somewhat varying degree of success, it appears that there is a perception among managed care enrollees, providers of care, and state and federal regulators and legislators that the managed care industry is wrongfully enhancing its bottom line at the expense of members' health.

Journal Article↗

Malpractice in ophthalmology: guidelines for preventing pitfalls.

PURPOSE: To provide ophthamologists with guidelines with which to prevent common errors of malpractice and suggest ways to reduce the risk of liability claims by improving the quality of care. METHODS: Interview of a vitreoretinal surgeon (AW) and search of the current relevant literature. RESULTS: Some of the most common errors leading to ophthalmic malpractice litigation are: 1) failed diagnosis or progression of disease, 2) missing pathology, 3) failed surgery, 4) inadequate patient care, 5) lack of communication, 6) holding back information, 7) no signed informed consent, 8) lack of correct documentation/poor records, 9) poor doctor-patient relationship, 10) no ethical responsibilities, 11) no professional liability insurance coverage, 12) highly pressured hospital set-up, 13) insufficient understanding of law. CONCLUSION: The risk for malpractice litigation for ophthalmologists may be reduced by preventing common causes of malpractice and improving the quality of care.

Humans↗

Liability for the treatment of anterior segment eye disease.

About 25% of large professional liability claims against optometrists involve misdiagnosis of anterior segment anomalies, most notably corneal abrasions (especially secondary to contact lens wear), tumors of the lid (principally basal cell carcinoma), pigmentary and angle-closure glaucoma, and, less commonly, anterior uveitis. Treatment of anterior segment eye disease is an infrequent cause of litigation involving optometrists. Potential causes of litigation include mismanagement of corneal abrasions and ocular foreign bodies, side effects of topical and systemic steroids, and adverse effects of glaucoma medications. In determining an optometrist's liability for care, a medical standard of care will be applied.

Anterior Eye Segment↗

Misconduct and fraud in research: social and legislative issues symposium of the Society of University Surgeons.

The symposium was concluded with a question and answer period, which served to clarify and further emphasize the aforementioned issues. Many concerns of coauthorship responsibilities, due process, and potential sanctions were discussed. Moral and ethical issues reflecting the extent of punishment, reporting of misconduct to hospitals and specialty boards, and the almost assured litigation and counter-litigation were approached with considerable apprehension and concern. Misconduct in science will clearly be monitored more closely than in the past. Increasing coauthorship responsibility, conscientious senior investigator supervision, and institutional cooperation will provide the framework to discourage dishonesty in science and encourage proper educational development of both young and established investigators in a milieu of scientific integrity.

Biomedical Research↗

Psychiatric malpractice: recent clinical loss experience in the United States.

This article presents a survey of recent trends in psychiatric malpractice litigation and its consequences in the United States. More particularly, it investigates the factors that trigger such litigation, the nature of the complaints and claims, the characteristics of patient and psychiatrist and the cost it involves for the parties concerned.

Adolescent↗

Can practice guidelines reduce the number and costs of malpractice claims?

Practice guidelines have the potential to reduce the number of malpractice cases and the costs of settling them. However, for practice guidelines to exert any influence, they must be assumed to be (1) developed for conditions or procedures that frequently lead to events for which negligence claims are filed; (2) widely accepted in the medical profession; (3) fully integrated into clinical practice; and (4) straightforward and readily interpreted in a litigation setting. Because the validity of each of these assumptions can be questioned, the idea that inserting practice guidelines into the existing litigation process will generate large savings in the near future is overly optimistic.

Clinical Medicine↗