Skip to main content
Download PDF

Medical malpractice and anesthesiology: literature review and role of the expert witness

Fautes médicales et anesthésiologie: revue de la littérature et rôle du témoin expert

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia volume 54, Article number: 227 (2007) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a narrative review of the physician experience of medical malpractice litigation applied to an anesthesiology case with particular emphasis on the role played by medical expert witnesses.

Sources

Literature searches were conducted of English-language medical publications published between 1996 – 2006 using both Medline and Pubmed databases. Key words included: “medical malpractice”; “medical malpractice litigation”; “medical expert witness”; “expert witness liability”, “expert witness bias”; “hindsight bias”; and “outcome bias”.

Principal findings

Patient injury resulting from medical care is common but most injured patients do not sue. Implicit review of medical files is biased to an important degree by the occurrence of severe injury; care is more often deemed substandard when the resulting injury is severe. Expert analysis of medical mal-occurrences is influenced by both hindsight and outcome bias. Compensation for those who do sue is influenced by the severity of injury and the degree of disability. The activity of experts is not commonly subject to review by peers, professional groups or licensing authorities.

Conclusions

The legal process for resolving patient claims against physicians is well delineated and transparent; its operational features are complex and prejudiced by severe outcomes. Bias is pervasive in the analysis of medical occurrences and may result in findings against caregivers which are unfair.

Résumé

Objectif

Fournir une revue narrative de l’expérience du médecin face à un litige pour faute médicale appliqué à un cas d’anesthésiologie, en soulignant le rôle joué par les témoins experts médicaux.

Sources

Des recherches de littérature ont été effectuées dans les publications médicales anglophones publiées entre 1996 et 2006 en utilisant les bases de données Medline et Pubmed. Les mots-clés suivants ont été recherchés: « medical malpractice » (faute médicale); « medical malpractice litigation » (litige de faute médicale); « medical expert witness » (témoin expert médical); « expert witness liability » (responsabilité du témoin expert); « expert witness bias » (préjugé du témoin expert); « hindsight bias » (préjugé en rétrospective); et « outcome bias » (préjugé de résultat).

Constatations principales

Les lésions aux patients résultant de soins médicaux sont courantes; toutefois, la plupart des patients lésés n’engagent pas de poursuites. La révision implicite des dossiers médicaux est biaisée de façon importante par l’incidence de lésions graves; lorsque la lésion est grave, les soins sont souvent jugés non conformes aux normes. L’analyse experte des incidences de fautes médicales est influencée par les jugements rétrospectifs et par rapport aux résultats. Le dédommagement aux patients qui engagent des poursuites est influencé par la gravité du tort et le degré de handicap. L’activité des experts n’est en général pas sujette à la révision par des pairs, des groupes professionnels ou les autorités réglementaires.

Conclusions

Le processus légal qui gère les revendications des patients contre les médecins est clairement défini et transparent; ses aspects fonctionnels sont complexes et partiaux aux résultats graves. Les préjugés sont omniprésents dans l’analyse des incidences médicales et pourraient avoir pour conséquences des injustices contre certains soignants.

References

  1. Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: 33–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Body DI. Civil and criminal actions against anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth 1994; 73: 83–92.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferner RE, McDowell SE. Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795–2005: a literature review. J R Soc Med 2006; 99: 309–14.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Picard EI, Robertson GB. Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospital in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough: Carswell Publishing; 1996: 289 -90.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berlin L. Countersuing plaintiffs and their attorneys who have sued for malpractice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 1153–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet 1994; 343: 1609–13.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande A, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical mal- practice litigation. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2024–33.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Studdert DM, Thomas EJ, Burstin HR, Zbar BI, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Negligent care and malpractice claiming behavior in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000; 38: 250–60.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ambady N, LaPlante D, Nguyen T, Rosenthal R, Chaumeton N, Levinson W. Surgeons’ tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. Surgery 2002; 132: 5–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stelfox HT, Gandhi TK, Orav EJ, Gustafson ML. The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med 2005; 118: 1126–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Pichert JW, Miller CS, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA 2002; 287: 2951–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Entman SS, et al. Obstetricians’ prior malpractice experience and patients’ satisfaction with care. JAMA 1994; 272: 1583–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 245–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmidek JM, Weeks WB. Relationship between tort claims and patient incident reports in the Veterans Health Administration. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 117–22.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Edbril SD, Lagasse RS. Relationship between malpractice litigation and human errors. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 848–55.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004; 170: 1678–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Picard EI, Robertson GB. Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospital in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough: Carswell Publishing; 1996: 174.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Samra J, Connolly DA. Legal compensability of symptoms associated with posttraumatic stress disorder: a Canadian perspective. Int J Forens Mental Health 2004; 3: 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Taragin MI, Willet LR, Wilczek AP, Trout R, Carson JL. The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 780–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheney FW, Posner K, Caplan RA, Ward RJ. Standard of care and anesthesia liability. JAMA 1989; 261: 1599–1603.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR. Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1963–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Margo CE. Peer and expert opinion and the reliability of implicit case review. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 614–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas EJ, Lipsitz SR, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 812–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Variation in expert opinion in medical malpractice review. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 1049–54.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayward RA, Hofer TP. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001; 286: 415–20.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Liang BA. Clinical assessment of malpractice case scenarios in an anesthesiology department. J Clin Anesth 1999; 11: 267–79.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Localio AR, Weaver SL, Landis JR, et al. Identifying adverse events caused by medical care: degree of physician agreement in a retrospective chart review. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 457–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lomas J, Anderson G, Enkin M, Vayda E, Roberts R, MacKinnon B. The role of evidence in the consensus process. Results from a Canadian consensus exercise. JAMA 1988; 259: 3001–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Levine RD, Sugarman M, Schiler W, Weinshel S, Lehning EJ, Lagasse RS. The effect of group discussion on interrater reliability of structured peer review. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 507–15.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, DeMonner S, Hayward RA. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care 2000; 38: 152–61.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Picard EI, Robertson GB. Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough: Carswell Publishing; 1996: 184–209.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Berlin L. Errors in judgment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 1259–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ely JW, Hartz AJ, James PA, Johnson CA. Determining the standard of care in medical malpractice: the physician’s perspective. Wake Forest Law Rev 2002; 37: 861–75.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Meadow WL, Bell A, Sunstein CR. Statistics, not memories: what was the standard of care for administering antenatal steroids to women in preterm labor between 1985 and 2000 ? Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 356–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hurwitz B. How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence? BMJ 2004; 329: 1024–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Samanta A, Samanta J, Gunn M. Legal considerations of clinical guidelines: will NICE make a difference? J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 133–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, Shapiro DW, Brennan TA. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 450–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mello MM. Of swords and shields; the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. U Penn Law Rev 2001; 149: 645–710.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Genuis SJ. The proliferation of clinical practice guidelines: professional development of medicine-by-numbers. J Am Board Fam Pract 2005; 18: 419–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 2000; 355: 103–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 1999; 281: 1900–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342: 1317–22.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hayward RS, Guyatt GH, More KA, McKibbon KA, Carter AO. Canadian physicians’ attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997; 156: 1715–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hurwitz B. Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 661–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 1999; 282; 1458–65.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grinshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 527–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA 2001; 286: 1461–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Pelly JE, Newby L, Tito F, Redman S, Adrian AM. Clinical practice guidelines before the law: sword or shield? Med J Aust 1998; 169: 330–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosoff AJ. Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Polit Policy Law 2001; 26: 327–68.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Berlin L. Outcome bias. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 557–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Cheney FW. Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. JAMA 1991; 265: 1957–60.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Morris JA Jr,Carillo Y, Jenkins JM, et al. Surgical adverse events, risk management, and malpractice outcome: morbidity and mortality review is not enough. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 844–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Berlin L. Hindsight bias. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 597–601.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Fischhoff B. Hindsight not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol 1975; 104: 288–99.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kamin KA, Rachlinski JJ. Determining liability in hindsight. Law Hum Behav 1995; 19: 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. LaBine SJ, LaBine G. Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law Hum Behav 1996; 20: 501–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Roese NJ, Olson JM. Counterfactuals, causal attributions, and the hindsight bias: a conceptual integration. J Exp Soc Psychol 1996; 32: 197–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Berlin L. Proximate cause. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 569–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Picard EI, Robertson GB. Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospital in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough: Carswell Publishing; 1996: 278–80.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Peters PG Jr. Empirical evidence and malpractice litigation. Wake Forest Law Rev 2002; 37: 757–77.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gomez JC. Silencing the hired guns. Ensuring honesty in medical testimony through state legislation. J Leg Med 2005; 26: 385–99.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Cohen FL. The expert medical witness in legal perspective. J Leg Med 2004; 25: 185–209.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Resnick DB. Punishing medical experts for unethical testimony. A step in the right direction or a step too far? J Phil Sci Law 2004; 4: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Feld AD, Carey WD. Expert witness malfeasance: how should specialty societies respond? Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 991–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Milunsky A. Lies, damned lies, and medical experts: the abrogation of responsibility by specialty organizations and a call for action. J Child Neurol 2003; 18: 413–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Berlin L. Bearing false witness. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1515–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Ottawa and the Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Edward Crosby

Authors
  1. Edward Crosby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Crosby.

Additional information

Funding: Support for this work was derived from departmental and institutional resources

The author is an elected member of the Council of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). All opinions expressed in this article are his own and are not those of the CMPA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crosby, E. Medical malpractice and anesthesiology: literature review and role of the expert witness. Can J Anesth 54, 227 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022645

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022645

Keywords

  • Expert Testimony
  • Expert Witness
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Legal Liability
  • Hindsight Bias