Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Cancer Litigation in the 21st Century

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Approximately 15% of general surgeons practicing in the United States face a medical malpractice lawsuit each year. This study aimed to determine the reasons for litigation for breast cancer care during the past 17 years by reviewing a public legal database.

Methods

The LexisNexis legal database was queried using a comprehensive list of terms related to breast cancer, identifying all cases from 2000 to 2017. Data were abstracted, and descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

The study identified 264 cases of litigation pertaining to breast cancer care. Delay in breast cancer diagnosis was the most common reason for litigation (n = 156, 59.1%), followed by improperly performed procedures (n = 26, 9.8%). The medical specialties most frequently named in lawsuits as primary defendants were radiology (n = 76, 28.8%), general surgery (n = 74, 28%), and primary care (n = 52, 19.7%). The verdict favored the defendant in 145 cases (54.9%) and the plantiff in 60 cases (22.7%). In 59 cases (22.3%), a settlement was reached out of court. The median plaintiff verdict payouts ($1,485,000) were greater than the settlement payouts ($862,500) (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Failure to diagnose breast cancer in a timely manner was the most common reason for litigation related to breast cancer care in the United States. General surgery was the second most common specialty named in the malpractice cases studied. Most cases were decided in favor of the defendant, but when the plaintiff received a payout, the amount often was substantial. Identifying the most common reasons for litigation may help decrease this rate and improve the patient experience.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Choudhry AJ, Haddad NN, RiveraM, et al. Medical malpractice in the management of small bowel obstruction: a 33-year review of case law. Surgery. 2016;160:1017–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:629–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kern KA. The delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: medicolegal implications and risk prevention for surgeons. Breast Dis. 2001;12:145–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kern KA. Causes of breast cancer malpractice litigation. a 20-year civil court review. Arch Surg. 1992;127:542–6; (discussion 546–7).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith M. Avoiding malpractice for breast surgeons. General Surgery News. 9 Nov 2017.

  6. 6. Berlin L. Malpractice and breast cancer: perceptions versus reality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:334–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brenner RJ. Medicolegal aspects of breast imaging: variable standards of care relating to different types of practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:719–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenner RJ. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:931–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell LS, Atkinson L, Hagan-Aylor C, Binner BH, Gannon E, Weiss PM, Kenny E. Medicolegal considerations in breast health: the benefits of collaboration between OB/GYNs and radiologists. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013;40:583–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitnick JS, Vazquez MF, Kronovet SZ, Roses DF. Malpractice litigation involving patients with carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181:315–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Potchen EJ, Bisesi MA, Sierra AE, Potchen JE. Mammography and malpractice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:475–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vijh R, Anand V. Malpractice litigation in patients in relation to delivery of breast care in the NHS. Breast. 2008;17:148–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Whang JS, Baker SR, Patel R, Luk L, Castro A III. The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the united states. Radiology. 2013;266:548–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zylstra S, Bors-Koefoed R, Mondor M, Anti D, Giordano K, Resseguie LJ. A statistical model for predicting the outcome in breast cancer malpractice lawsuits. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:392–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zylstra S, D’Orsi CJ, Ricci BA, Halloran EE, Resseguie LJ, Greenwald L, Mondor MC. Defense of breast cancer malpractice claims. Breast J. 2001;7:76–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bertelsen CA, Tabari CA. Reducing medical malpractice risk in breast cancer care: a surgical perspective. In: Dirbas F, Scott-Conner C (eds) Breast surgical techniques and interdisciplinary management. New York: Springer; 2011, pp. 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mabry H, Giuliano AE. Sentinel node mapping for breast cancer: progress to date and prospects for the future. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2007;16:55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tuttle T, Habermann E, Abraham A, Emory T, Virnig B. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for patients with unilateral breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7:1117–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes. Retrieved March 2018. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

  21. Ward CJ, Green VL. Risk management and medicolegal issues in breast cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59:439–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:673–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kemp Jacobsen K, O’Meara ES, Key D, et al. Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:2198–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Black WC, Nease RF Jr, Tosteson AN. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:720–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Consensus guideline on image-guided percutaneous biopsy of palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions. Retrieved March 2018. 2017. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/PDF_Statements/Image-Guided_Percutaneous_Biopsy_Palpable_Nonpalpable.pdf.

  27. Taylor D, O’Hanlon S, Latham B. False-negative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: use of more than one imaging modality and application of the triple test avoids misdiagnosis. BMJ Case Rep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2016-218556.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Steven D. Orwoll, Senior Designer in Brand Strategy and Creative Studio at Mayo Clinic Rochester, for creating the case map in the article.

Funding

This work has no external funding. It has not previously been submitted for publication. This work will be presented as a quick shot presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL, May 2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Brittany L. Murphy M.D., M.S., Mohamed D. Ray-Zack M.B.B.S., Pooja N. Reddy M.S., Asad J. Choudhry M.B.B.S., Martin D. Zielinski M.D., Elizabeth B. Habermann Ph.D., M.P.H. & James W. Jakub M.D.

  2. The Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Surgical Outcomes Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Brittany L. Murphy M.D., M.S. & Elizabeth B. Habermann Ph.D., M.P.H.

  3. Garson and Jakub LLP, New York, NY, USA

    Louis E. Jakub Jr. J.D.

  4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Kathleen R. Brandt M.D.

Authors
  1. Brittany L. Murphy M.D., M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed D. Ray-Zack M.B.B.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pooja N. Reddy M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asad J. Choudhry M.B.B.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin D. Zielinski M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth B. Habermann Ph.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Louis E. Jakub Jr. J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kathleen R. Brandt M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. James W. Jakub M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James W. Jakub M.D..

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

All authors disclose no conflicts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murphy, B.L., Ray-Zack, M.D., Reddy, P.N. et al. Breast Cancer Litigation in the 21st Century. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 2939–2947 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6579-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6579-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation