Malpractice

  • Ronald L. Eisenberg

Abstract

Malpractice is a tort, a civil wrong that is not based on the violation of a contract. Tort liability is almost always based on fault—something that was done incorrectly or something that should have been done but was omitted.1

Keywords

Catheter Assure Barium Expense Sponge 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Endnotes

  1. 1.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 361.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts #282 (1965).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., 366.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howard ML. Physician-patient relationship. In: Sanbar SS, Gibofsky A, Friestone MH, et al (eds). Legal Medicine, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mosby, 2001, pgs 235–244.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berlin L. Curbstone consultations. AJR 2000; 178: 1351–1359.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reynolds y Decatur Memorial Hospital, 277 3d80 (Ill App 1996).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diggs v Arizona Cardiologist, Ltd., Ariz Ct. App. No. 1 CA-CV 99–0508 (8/8/2000).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendel T. Informal consultations: do new risks exist with this age-old tradition? Medical Practice Management, May—June 2002: 308–311.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Block MB. Curbside consultations and malpractice policies. (letter) JAMA 1999;281:899; cited in footnote 6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Block MB. Personal communication, cited in footnote 6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke v Hoek, 174 ed 208 (Cal App 1985).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berlin L. The importance of patient registration and processing. AJR 1997; 169: 1483–1486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rainer v Grossman, 31 3d539 (Cal App 1973).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berlin L. Are radiologists contracted by third parties to interpret radiographs liable for not communicating results directly to patients? AJR 2002; 178: 27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adams v Harron, LEXIS 21937 (US 4th Cir 1999).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beaman v Helton & Helton, 573 So2d 776 (Miss 1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adams v Harron, LEXIS 21937 (US 4th Cir 1999).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hafner v Beck, 916 P2d 1105 (Ariz App 1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berlin L. Are radiologists contracted by third parties to interpret radiographs liable for not communicating results directly to patients? AJR 2002; 178: 27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meena v Wilburn, 603 So2d 866 (Miss 1992).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Betesh v United States of America, 400 F Supp 238 (US Dist DC 1974).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berlin L. The good samaritan. AJR 2001; 177: 529–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eisenberg RL. Obstetrical ultrasonography: ectopic pregnancy. In: Risk Management: Test and Syllabus. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999: 29–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brenner RJ. Angiographic interventional procedures. In: Risk Management: Test and Syllabus. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999: 13–17.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Ritchie v West, 23 Ill 329 (1860); cited in Berlin L. Does the missed radiographic diagnosis constitute malpractice? Radiology 1977;123:523–527.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts #289 (b).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tallbull v Whitney, 564 P.2d 162 (Mont. 1977).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 369.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robbins v Footer, 553 F.2d 123 (D.C. Cir 1977).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morrsion v MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555 (D.C. 1979).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 369.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., 366.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brookover v Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, 893 F.2d 411 (1st Cir 1990).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heimer v Privratsky, 434 N.W. 2d 357 (N.D. 1989).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cockerton v Mercy Hospital Medical Center, 490 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa Ct App 1992).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 367.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peacock v Samaritan Health Services, 159 Ariz 123, 765 P.2d 525 (Ct. App 1988).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Iperen v Van Bramer, 392 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1986).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hastings v Baton Rouge General Hospital, 498 So.2d 713 (La. 1986).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 368.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid., 368–369.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jones v Chidester, 531 Pa. 31, 610 A.2d 964 (1992).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 369.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Howard ML. Physician as defendant in medical malpractice. In: Sanbar SS, Gibofsky A, Firestone MH, et al (eds). Legal Medicine, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mosby, 2001, pgs 85–86.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wallace v St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 44 Conn App 257, 688 A.2d 352 (1997).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wendland y Sparks, 574 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 1998).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts #440 (1965).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 372.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mulkey v Tubb, 535 So.2d 1294 (La. CtApp 1988).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 373.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Keithley v St. Joseph’s Hospital, 698 P2d 435 (N Mex App 1984).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Muller v Thuat, 430 NW2d 884 (Neb 1988).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bovbjert RR, Schumm JM. Judicial policy and quantitative research: Indiana’s statute of limitations for medical practitioners. Indiana Law Rev 1998; 31: 1051–1085.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Berlin L. Statute of limitations and the continuum of care doctrine. AJR 2001; 177: 1011–1016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., 374.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ibid., 375.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ibid., 376.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts #467 (1965).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Li v Yellow Cab Co. of California, 532 P.2d 1226 (Cal. 1975).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bevan v Vassar Farms, Inc., 793 P.2d 711 (Idaho 1990).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brenner RJ. The malpractice crisis, 2002: here we go again. Imaging Economics, October 2002: 6–12.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miller RD, Hutton RC. Problems in Health Care Law, 8th ed. Gaithersburg (MD), Aspen, 2000, pg. 377.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wright v Central DePage Hospital Association, 63 Ill. 2d 313, 347 N.E.2d 736 (1976).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Best v Taylor Machine Works Co., 179 Ill. 2d 367, 689 N.E. 2d 1057 (1997).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Johnson v St. Vincent Hospital, 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E. 2d 585 (1980).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brenner RJ. The malpractice crisis, 2002: here we go again. Imaging Economics, October 2002: 6–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald L. Eisenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAlameda County Medical CenterOaklandUSA
  2. 2.University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco and DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations