Advertisement

Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications

Published:October 07, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.013

      Abstract

      Purpose

      The aim of this study was to compare the frequency and liability costs associated with radiology malpractice claims relative to other medical services and to evaluate the clinical context and case disposition associated with radiology malpractice claims.

      Methods

      This HIPAA-compliant study was exempted from institutional review board approval. The Comparative Benchmarking System database, a repository of more than 300,000 medical malpractice cases in the United States, was queried for closed claims over a five-year period (2008-2012). Claims were categorized by the medical service primarily responsible for the claim and the paid total loss. For all cases in which radiology was the primary responsible service, the case abstracts were evaluated to determine injury severity, claimant type by setting, claim allegation, process of care involved, case disposition, modality involved, and body section. Intracategory comparisons were made on the basis of the frequency of indemnity payment and total indemnity payment for paid cases, using χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

      Results

      Radiology was the eighth most likely responsible service to be implicated in a medical malpractice claim, with a median total paid loss (indemnity payment plus defense cost plus administrative expense) per closed case of $30,091 (mean, $205,619 ± $508,883). Radiology claims were most commonly associated with high- and medium-severity injuries (93.3% [820 of 879]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7%-94.95%), the outpatient setting (66.3% [581 of 876]; 95% CI, 63.0%-69.2%), and diagnosis-related allegations (ie, failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis) (57.3% [504 of 879]; 95% CI, 54.0%-60.6%). A high proportion of claims pertained to cancer diagnoses (44.0% [222 of 504]; 95% CI, 39.7%-48.3%). A total of 62.3% (548 of 879; 95% CI, 59.1%-65.5%) of radiology claims were closed without indemnity payments; 37.7% (331 of 879; 95% CI, 34.5%-40.9%) were closed with a median indemnity payment of $175,000 (range, $112-$6,691,762; mean $481,094 ± $727,636).

      Conclusions

      Radiology malpractice claims most commonly involve diagnosis-related allegations in the outpatient setting, particularly cancer diagnoses, with approximately one-third of claims resulting in payouts to the claimants.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ACR Member Login
      ACR Members, access to JACR is a member benefit. Use your ACR credentials to access all JACR articles and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Burkle C.M.
        Medical malpractice: can we rescue a decaying system?.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2011; 86: 326-332
        • Brennan T.A.
        • Sox C.M.
        • Burstin H.R.
        Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical malpractice litigation.
        N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 1963-1967
      1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Liability Reform and Patient Safety Initiative progress report. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-resources/liability/medliabrep.html. Accessed December 15, 2013.

        • Dick III, J.F.
        • Gallagher T.H.
        • Brenner R.J.
        • et al.
        Predictors of radiologists’ perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192: 327-333
        • Cypel Y.S.
        • Sunshine J.H.
        • Ellenbogen P.H.
        The current medical liability insurance crisis: detailed findings from two ACR surveys in 2003 and 2004.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 595-601
        • Baker S.R.
        • Whang J.S.
        • Luk L.
        • Clarkin K.S.
        • Castro III, A.
        • Patel R.
        The demography of medical malpractice suits against radiologists.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 539-547
        • Whang J.S.
        • Baker S.R.
        • Patel R.
        • Luk L.
        • Castro III, A.
        The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 548-554
        • Baker S.R.
        • Patel R.H.
        • Yang L.
        • Lelkes V.M.
        • Castro III, A.
        Malpractice suits in chest radiology: an evaluation of the histories of 8265 radiologists.
        J Thorac Imaging. 2013; 28: 388-391
      2. Berlin LM. Failure of radiologic communication: an increasing cause of malpractice litigation and harm to patients. Appl Radiol. Available at: http://www.appliedradiology.com/Issues/2010/01/Articles/Failure-of-radiologic-communication–An-increasing-cause-of-malpractice-litigation-and-harm-to-patients.aspx. Accessed January 12, 2015.

        • Raskin M.M.
        The perils of communicating the unexpected finding.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7: 791-795
        • Brantley S.D.
        • Brantley R.D.
        Reporting significant unexpected findings: the emergence of information technology solutions.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 304-307
        • Berlin L.
        Communication of the significant but not urgent finding.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 168: 329-331
      3. Sowka M. Malpractice claims: final compilation. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Brookfield, Wisconsin1980
        • Physician Insurers Association of America
        Claim trend analysis study.
        Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville, Maryland2004
        • Jena A.B.
        • Seabury S.
        • Lakdawalla D.
        • Chandra A.
        Malpractice risk according to physician specialty.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 629-636
        • Loy C.T.
        • Irwig L.
        Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review.
        JAMA. 2004; 292: 1602-1609
        • Leslie A.
        • Jones A.J.
        • Goddard P.R.
        The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists.
        Br J Radiol. 2000; 73: 1052-1055
        • Berbaum K.S.
        • el-Khoury G.Y.
        • Franken Jr., E.A.
        • Kathol M.
        • Montgomery W.J.
        • Hesson W.
        Impact of clinical history on fracture detection with radiography.
        Radiology. 1988; 168: 507-511
        • Houssami N.
        • Irwig L.
        • Simpson J.M.
        • McKessar M.
        • Blome S.
        • Noakes J.
        The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 85: 223-228
        • Carney P.A.
        • Cook A.J.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • et al.
        Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 219-230
        • Berlin L.
        • Berlin J.W.
        Malpractice and radiologists in Cook County, IL: trends in 20 years of litigation.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 165: 781-788
        • Potchen E.J.
        • Bissesi M.A.
        • Sierra A.E.
        • Potchen J.E.
        Mammography and malpractice.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991; 156: 475-480
        • Berlin L.
        • Murphy D.R.
        • Singh H.
        Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum.
        Diagnosis. 2014; 1: 263-268
        • Pinto A.
        • Brunese L.
        Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology.
        World J Radiol. 2010; 2: 377-383
        • Studdert D.M.
        • Mello M.M.
        • Gawande A.A.
        • et al.
        Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 2024-2033
        • Berlin L.
        Radiologic errors and malpractice: a blurry distinction.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 517-522
        • Brenner R.J.
        • Lucey L.L.
        • Smith J.J.
        • Saunders R.
        Radiology and medical malpractice claims: a report on the practice standards claims survey of the Physician Insurers Association of America and the American College of Radiology.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171: 19-22
      4. Tom’s inflation calculator. Available at: http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html. Accessed February 1, 2015.

        • Freer T.W.
        • Ulissey M.J.
        Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center.
        Radiology. 2001; 220: 781-786
        • Zheng B.
        • Chang Y.H.
        • Staiger M.
        • Good W.
        • Gur D.
        Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digitized mammograms.
        Acad Radiol. 1995; 2: 655-662
        • Haas B.M.
        • Kalra V.
        • Geisel J.
        • Raghu M.
        • Durand M.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
        Radiology. 2013; 269: 694-700
        • Lei J.
        • Yang P.
        • Zhang L.
        • Wang Y.
        • Yang K.
        Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis.
        Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 595-602
        • Mariscotti G.
        • Houssami N.
        • Durando M.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
        Anticancer Res. 2014; 34: 1219-1225
        • Partyka L.
        • Lourenco A.P.
        • Mainiero M.B.
        Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 216-222
        • Greenberg J.S.
        • Javitt M.C.
        • Katzen J.
        • Michael S.
        • Holland A.E.
        Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 687-693
        • Zhao Y.
        • de Bock G.H.
        • Vliegenthart R.
        • et al.
        Performance of computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT: comparison with double reading by nodule volume.
        Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 2076-2084
        • Harvey H.B.
        • Gilman M.D.
        • Wu C.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic yield of recommendations for chest CT examination prompted by outpatient chest radiographic findings.
        Radiology. 2015; 275: 262-271