Canada: Medical Legal Aspects of Regional Anesthesia Practice

Chapter

Key Points

  • Legal action against anesthesiologists in Canada rarely results in a court decision; in these cases, approximately 2/3 of the decisions were in favor of the physician. Most litigious claims stem from the use of newer anticoagulants, incorrect dosage of medications, incorrect medication given, allergies, and issues surrounding informed consent.

  • The portion of medical legal actions related to regional anesthesia has increased in recent years. Recent reports show that 80 % were dismissed and 10 % were settled. Most regional anesthesia claims (75 %) are related to complications of neuraxial blocks, 1/3 of which are obstetric cases.

  • The Canadian Medical Protective Association is a physician-funded entity that pays current and past claims and assists with a variety of issues related to legal action lodged against physicians. The most recent analysis of the CMPA database revealed 77 cases related to regional anesthesia over a 20-year period. Twenty-five involved epidurals, 11 involved spinal anesthesia, and the remainder involved various pain blocks and peripheral nerve blocks. The majority (60/77) of these cases were dismissed.

  • Forty-one obstetric cases were analyzed from the CMPA database; several of these involved serious complications, including death. Litigation costs associated with obstetric claims vary but can be in the millions of dollars range, in situations with catastrophic outcomes or a compromised baby.

Keywords

Medical legal Litigation Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) Regional anesthesia Neuraxial anesthesia 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Information provided by Ross Berringer MD (ABEM) MCFP (EM), Acting Senior Physician Risk Manager CMPA a,b.

References

  1. 1.
    Duranceau A. The Canadian Medical Protective Association. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1998;83:22–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peng PW, Smedstad KG. Litigation in Canada against anesthesiologists practicing regional anesthesia. A review of closed claims. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:105–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canadian Medical Protective Association Annual Report 2003. Ottawa: The Canadian Medical Protective Association; 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morley-Forster P. Regional techniques for cesarean section. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manage. 2001;5:24–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oyston J. Obstetrical anaesthesia in Ontario. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:1117–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morrison S. Mother of twins sues for $2.4 million. The Hamilton Spectator. Hamilton: Torstar. Accessed 9 Aug 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    St-Amand J. Medicolegal nightmare: a tragic case, a needless trial. CMAJ. 1993;148:806–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norris MC, Leighton BL, DeSimone CA. Needle bevel direction and headache after inadvertent dural puncture. Anesthesiology. 1989;70:729–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson A, Henry R, Avery N, VanDenKerkhof E, Milne B. Informed consent for labour epidurals: what labouring women want to know. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:1068–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smedstad KG, Beilby W. Informed consent for epidural analgesia in labour. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:1055–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiaMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations