Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2018

01-10-2018 | Breast Oncology

Breast Cancer Litigation in the 21st Century

Authors: 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., Louis E. Jakub Jr., J.D., Kathleen R. Brandt, M.D., James W. Jakub, M.D.

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Kern KA. The delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: medicolegal implications and risk prevention for surgeons. Breast Dis. 2001;12:145–58.CrossRefPubMed Kern KA. The delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: medicolegal implications and risk prevention for surgeons. Breast Dis. 2001;12:145–58.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kern KA. Causes of breast cancer malpractice litigation. a 20-year civil court review. Arch Surg. 1992;127:542–6; (discussion 546–7).CrossRefPubMed Kern KA. Causes of breast cancer malpractice litigation. a 20-year civil court review. Arch Surg. 1992;127:542–6; (discussion 546–7).CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Smith M. Avoiding malpractice for breast surgeons. General Surgery News. 9 Nov 2017. Smith M. Avoiding malpractice for breast surgeons. General Surgery News. 9 Nov 2017.
6.
go back to reference 6. Berlin L. Malpractice and breast cancer: perceptions versus reality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:334–6.CrossRefPubMed 6. Berlin L. Malpractice and breast cancer: perceptions versus reality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:334–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Brenner RJ. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:931–5.CrossRefPubMed Brenner RJ. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:931–5.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Potchen EJ, Bisesi MA, Sierra AE, Potchen JE. Mammography and malpractice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:475–80.CrossRefPubMed Potchen EJ, Bisesi MA, Sierra AE, Potchen JE. Mammography and malpractice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:475–80.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Vijh R, Anand V. Malpractice litigation in patients in relation to delivery of breast care in the NHS. Breast. 2008;17:148–51.CrossRefPubMed Vijh R, Anand V. Malpractice litigation in patients in relation to delivery of breast care in the NHS. Breast. 2008;17:148–51.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
15.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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. 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.
17.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Ward CJ, Green VL. Risk management and medicolegal issues in breast cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59:439–46.CrossRefPubMed Ward CJ, Green VL. Risk management and medicolegal issues in breast cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59:439–46.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Breast Cancer Litigation in the 21st Century
Authors
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.
Louis E. Jakub Jr., J.D.
Kathleen R. Brandt, M.D.
James W. Jakub, M.D.
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6579-2

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2018 Go to the issue