ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2014
Court decisions on medical malpractice.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of Machine Learning Models for Postjudgment Estimation of High Compensation Ratios After Lower Limb Fracture Surgery: Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Analysis of the characteristics, efficiency, and influencing factors of third-party mediation mechanisms for resolving medical disputes in public hospitals in China.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A machine learning-based predictive model of causality in orthopaedic medical malpractice cases in China.PloS one · 2024Article
- Improving surgical quality of care: learning from 8,331 surgical medical malpractice cases.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Medical Professional Liability in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Pilot Study of Criminal Proceedings in the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Rome.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Endodontic malpractice litigations in the United States from 2000 to 2021.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Why Are Patients Unhappy with Their Healthcare? A Romanian Physicians' Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Professional liability: assessment of court sentences for lawsuits against dentists in Peru.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2021Article
- Guidelines and Current Assessment of Health Care Responsibility in Italy.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
- Medical malpractice in Iran: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Review
- Wrist malpractice claims in Northern Norway 2005-2014. Lessons to be learned.International journal of circumpolar health · 2018Article
- A 12-year analysis of closed medical malpractice claims of the Taiwan civil court: A retrospective study.Medicine · 2018Article
- Characteristics of medical disputes arising from dental practice in Guangzhou, China: an observational study.BMJ open · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies on court cases dealing with medical malpractice are few and far between. This retrospective study, therefore, undertakes an analysis of medical malpractice lawsuits brought before regional courts in two judicial districts of the federal state of Hesse.
methodsOver a 5-year period (2006-2010), 232 court decisions on medical malpractice taken by the regional courts (Landgericht) of Kassel and Marburg were evaluated according to medical discipline, diagnosis, therapy, relevant level of care, charge of neglect of duty by the claimant party, outcome of the lawsuit, and further criteria.
resultsWith certain overlaps, the disciplines most frequently confronted with claims of medical malpractice were accident surgery and orthopedics (30.2%; n = 70), dentistry (16.4%; n = 38), surgery (12.1%; n = 28), and gynecology and obstetrics (7.8%; n = 18), followed by the remaining medical disciplines (38.8%; n = 90). Malpractice allegations were brought against the practice-based sector in 35.8 % (n = 83) of cases, the hospital-based sector in 63.3% (n = 147) of cases, and other sectors in 0.9% (n = 2) of cases. The allegation grounds included false administration of treatment (67.2%; n = 156), false indication of treatment (37.1%; n = 86), false diagnosis (31.5%; n = 73), and/or organizational negligence (13.8%; n = 32). A breach of duty to inform was given as grounds for the claim in 38.8% (n = 90) of cases. A significant majority of 65.6% (n = 152) of cases ended in a court settlement. Of the cases, 18.9% (n = 44) were concluded by claim withdrawal, 11.2% (n = 26) by claim dismissal and 2.6% (n = 6) by criminal sentence. Of the cases, 1.7% (n = 4) were for purposes of securing evidence.
conclusionAlthough there was no conclusive evidence of malpractice, two thirds of the cases ended in a court settlement. On the one hand, this outcome reduces the burden on the courts, but on the other, it can in the long term give rise to expectations that doctors will accept liability even in cases of inevitable deterioration following due and proper treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24676889What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.