Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spinal-related malpractice suits against radiologists in the USA—rates, anatomic location, percent of adverse judgments, and average payments

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To present overall rates, anatomic location, percent of adverse settlements to the radiologists, and average payments to the plaintiff in spinal-related malpractice suits in a survey of 8,265 radiologists. The malpractice histories of 8,265 radiologists from 36 states were evaluated from credentialing data required of all radiologists participating in the network of One Call Medical Incorporated, a broker for CT/MR in workmen's compensation cases. Two hundred twenty-six of the 8,265 radiologists (31.5 %) had at least one suit. Of the 4,741 total claims, 627 (13.2 %) were related to the bones and adjacent soft tissue. Two hundred and ten (32.9 %) involved the spine. Of these, 70.2 % (134/191) were settled in favor of the plaintiff. One hundred and sixteen (68.2 %) involved the cervical spine with an average settlement of $483,156. Lumbar cases accounted for 28 (16.5 %) of spinal suits, with an average settlement of $119,272. Thoracic cases (26) accounted for only 15.3 % of spinal cases and had an average settlement of $481,608. An allegation of spinal malpractice resulting in a settlement or judgment against the radiologist occurred at a rate of 29.5 cases per 1,000 radiologists' person years. Of the three spinal regions, the cervical spine was the most frequent anatomic site of a malpractice suit and among all those cases settled incurred the highest payment in judgment to the plaintiff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berlin L, Berlin JW (1995) Malpractice and radiologists in cook county, IL: trends in 20 years of litigation. Am J Roentgenol 165:781–788

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cypel YS, Sunshine JH, Ellenbogen PH (2005) The current medical liability insurance crisis: detailed findings from two ACR surveys in 2003 and 2004. J Am Coll Radiol 2(7):595–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jena A, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A (2011) Malpractice risk according to specialty. N Engl J Med 365:629–636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker SR, Whang J, Luk L, Clarkin K, Castro A, Patel R (2013) The demography of malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology 266(2):539–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Whang J, Baker SR, Patel R, Luk L, Castro A (2013) The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology 266(2):548–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Manchikanti L, Boswell M, Singh V et al (2004) Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hu R, Mustard C, Burns C (1996) Epidemiology of incident spinal fracture in a complete population. Spine 21:492–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Quinlan J, Harty J, O'Byrne J (2005) The need for multidisciplinary management of patients with upper thoracic spine fractures caused by high-velocity impact: a review of 32 surgically stabilized cases. J Orthop Surg 34–39

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen R. Baker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, S.R., Lelkes, V., Patel, R.H. et al. Spinal-related malpractice suits against radiologists in the USA—rates, anatomic location, percent of adverse judgments, and average payments. Emerg Radiol 20, 513–516 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1150-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1150-8

Keywords

Navigation