Why is neuroophthalmology a special risk for general ophthalmic medical malpractice claims? Neuroophthalmology is a relatively small part of most general ophthalmic practices. Unfortunately, several features of neuroophthalmic practice create special risk for the comprehensive ophthalmologist. It has been my experience that, although claims against neuroophthalmologists are rare, neuroophthalmic-based claims against comprehensive ophthalmologists are not. First, clinical decisions about neuroophthalmic conditions may have vision-threatening or life-threatening consequences. Second, because these are often “high stakes” decisions, earlier diagnosis and treatment make a big difference in final outcome. Third, as opposed to other more common ophthalmic subspecialties, neuroophthalmic consultation may not be easily accessible, timely, or available to the comprehensive ophthalmologist. Fourth, the cost of a neuroophthalmic paid claim is often higher than the typical ophthalmology claim. About 15% of the paid claims (n = 17) of the Ophthalmology Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC) closed with a “large loss” ( $ 250,000). These 17 paid claims represented a disproportionate 59% of OMIC’s total paid indemnity (average $ 433,285). Interestingly, in the OMIC series, the number one payout was $790,000 for a “failure to diagnose brain tumor” that led to death. In addition, a second case of “failure to diagnose giant cell arteritis” (≥$250,000) was among the “large loss” cases.
This chapter presents composite but real closed cases as well as a few modified cases drawn from the author’s medicolegal consultation practice to highlight specific areas of concern, risk management and the potential for systems based failures in neuroophthalmic cases. I want to emphasize that the recommendations in this chapter are meant to be guidelines for care and not necessarily the “standard of care.”
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company. http://www.omic.com/resources/risk_man/deskref/ litigation/16.cfm.
Kraushar MF, Robb JH. Ophthalmic malpractice lawsuits with large monetary awards. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:333-337.
Kraushar MF, Turner MF. Medical malpractice litigation in ophthalmology: the New Jersey experience. Ophthalmic Surg 1986;17:671-674.
Kraushar MF. Recognizing and managing the litigious patient. Surv Ophthalmol 1992;37: 54-56.
Bettman JW. A review of 412 claims in ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1980;20:131-142.
Bettman JW. Office personnel and medicolegal claims. Surv Ophthalmol 1982;27:64-66.
Bettman JW. Seven hundred medicolegal cases in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1990;97: 1379-1384.
Bettman JW. Special problems in ophthalmic subspecialties. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1246-1252.
Donin JF. Special risk areas in ophthalmology. Neuro-ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1980;20:93-107.
Donin JF. The neuro-ophthalmology trap: failure to diagnose. Ophthalmology 1979;86: 1240-1245.
Hepler RS. Ophthalmology personnel in risk management. What office personnel need to know to keep you out of trouble. Ophthalmology 1990;97:1385-1389.
Lanckton AV. How to avoid malpractice claims. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:339-340.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, A.G. (2008). Neuroophthalmology. In: Kraushar, M.F. (eds) Risk Prevention in Ophthalmology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73341-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73341-8_16
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73340-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73341-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)