Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Litigation”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Effects of litigation settlements on posttraumatic stress symptoms in motor vehicle accident victims.

In order to investigate the effects of the initiation of litigation and its settlement on victims of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), we followed up 132 MVA victims from an initial assessment 1 to 4 months post-MVA for 1 year. Of the 67 who had initiated litigation, 18 (27%) settled within the 12 months, while 49 still had litigation pending; 65 never initiated litigation. Those who initiated litigation had more severe injuries and higher initial levels of posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms. All three groups improved in major role function and had reduced PTS symptoms over the 1 year follow-up. Those whose suits were still pending, as well as those whose suits had been settled, showed no reduction in measures of anxiety or depression, whereas the nonlitigants did show improvement on these measures.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed1995

Malpractice litigation fear and risk management beliefs among teaching hospital physicians.

We address four major issues related to physicians' fear of litigation: What are physicians' attitudes and beliefs toward malpractice? To whom or what do they attribute the "malpractice crisis"? Is fear of litigation associated with demographic and practice variables? What measures do physicians take to reduce risk? Hospital physicians in a southeastern health science center were surveyed (N = 356). Physicians attributed the malpractice crisis to circumstances outside medicine and beyond their control, perceived some patients as suitprone, and reported altering their practice to avoid being sued. Litigation fear was associated with physicians who were female, younger, not board certified, less clinically experienced, more clinically active, defendants in prior lawsuits, and in high-risk specialties. Physicians who were especially fearful of litigation placed less value in risk-management techniques. The findings are important in understanding how the prospect of litigation is perceived by physicians and how that perception may affect medical practice.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

The misplace of litigation in medical practice.

Medical decision-making is based upon mathematical probability in determining the significance of variables involved. Truth is often not absolute and medical decisions often require reconsideration of information, reanalysis and possible change. Litigation based upon error negates the ordinary practice of medicine. Error is intrinsic to all human behaviour and contributed to by uncertainty concerning precision in diagnosis and treatment of some diseases, mood change affecting ability to process cognitive and analytic function, and adverse work environment. Error is an important process in learning and providing it is recognized and fully admitted is a creative process providing opportunity for improving medical practice. Litigation is based on proof of negligence. Negligence is defined as carelessness, which is a rare cause of human and medical errors. The law confuses error with negligence; error should not be the basis for litigation. Litigation based on error is counter-productive to the best practice and improvement of clinical medicine. The assessment of errors and negligence is limited by the method of choice of medical experts, the adversarial system often ignoring the intermediate position in favour of a yes-no answer, the selection of experts to favour the desired result rather than the real situation, the method of questioning of witnesses which discourages explanation and creative solution of disagreement, and the hierarchical system which does not allow exploration of the issues and creative solutions. The basis for financial compensation for ill health is relevant when this assists the sufferer to cope with the ill health. The ethical basis for compensation when ill health results from error by health care workers is not more valid than ill health resulting from biological or environmental factors. Human error is common normal behaviour, while biological and environmental causes of ill health are common errors of human biology and the environment. Unintentional human error should not be the basis of financial remuneration or punishment. This latter principle has been applied to all services between the customer and service supplier, which may lead to unnecessary mistrust, anxiety and alienation in modern society. Incapacity from injury or disablement is covered by damages payment in only a small percentage of permanent disability cases (1.5% in the U.K.). Universal insurance by government or private agencies e.g. as in motor accident insurance to include the 98% of the permanently disabled who are receiving no payment at present would be both preferable and fairer. The protection of barristers from litigation for negligence in court is based upon arguments that could apply to most other occupations, and are equally, if not more relevant to medicine. The legal system of settling claims for negligence by doctors needs to be replaced by an investigative system which seeks to explain the basis and cause of error, which would benefit the patient and the doctor, and improve medical practice. A creative process needs to replace a judgmental, rigid and punitive system. A committee involving specialist groups in selecting expert witnesses, a health counsellor and a patient representative may be most suitable. Criminal acts, where error is performed deliberately, assault or sexual misdemeanors, would still be subject to the common law.

Australia↗
PubMed1996

An audit of litigation costs in four accident and emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out an audit of cases of litigation relating to accident and emergency departments to determine the outcome and costs to the hospitals involved. METHODS: The experience of four similar hospitals was examined over a three year period. All cases which required at least an exchange of solicitors' letters were included. RESULTS: In total 32 claims were made, of which 17 were settled by solicitors' letters, six cases proceeded to court and were lost by the hospital involved, and in nine cases an out-of-court settlement was reached. The costs to the hospitals ranged from 180 pounds to 30,000 pounds, with an average cost of 4080 pounds. Over the course of the audit the number of cases of litigation remained constant at three per year, while the number of complaints rose threefold to 150. The majority of successful claims concerned missed fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Litigation is uncommon and litigation costs reasonable. Given the frequency of missed fractures as a reason for a successful claim, early x ray reporting probably reduces the risk of litigation.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed1994

Psychological profiles distinguishing litigating and nonlitigating pain patients: subtle, and not so subtle.

Chronic pain patients in the midst of litigation over settlement for their injuries were examined as a naturally occurring group where one might expect various distortions or differences in test findings on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Revised (MMPI-2). Similar groups of 43 chronic pain patients in litigation and 45 not in litigation were examined on 10 key MMPI-2 variables selected a priori. Multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant difference between groups (p = .036). Litigators were most distinct in endorsing more obvious and fewer subtle symptoms. A conversion profile was also more salient for litigators once the obvious versus subtle differences were taken into account. Implications for use of the MMPI-2 and for clinical work with litigious patients are examined.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1982

Countersuit litigation.

Countersuit litigation brings into sharp focus some difficult and conflicting concepts in law and social policy. A point that seems reasonably self-evident is that the existence of a viable countersuit remedy in most states has not produced the huge volume of litigation that might create a "chilling effect" upon access to the courts, and it is not likely to do so in the future. If our system is actually committed to the idea that all disputes can be submitted to the courts for resolution, it is difficult to conclude that a remedy should not be available to an individual who has been subjected to the very real cost and hardship of defending a frivolous lawsuit. The use of the legal system to provide redress for injuries should be a two-way street. The fact that a remedy should exist, however, does not necessarily mean that is should be encouraged. Most serious-minded people understand that certain types of inconvenience are a necessary part of life in a civilized society. Nevertheless, if litigation is increasingly becoming a mechanism for profit or an instrument to remedy the most minor grievance, some response is mandatory. While litigation is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly, it is impossible to overlook the fact that there is a certain percentage of cases that are filed to exploit the system at the expense of innocent defendants. If litigation serves a dual purpose of providing compensation to injured parties and setting appropriate standards for future conduct, it is hard to find a rational basis for denying a countersuit remedy to those who have been victimized in this manner.

Jurisprudence↗
PubMed1988

Collective judicial management of mass toxic tort controversies: lessons and issues from the Agent Orange litigation.

Viewing the Agent Orange litigation as a case study, this article explores the feasibility and desirability of strengthening the powers of the courts to manage toxic tort controversies en masse. The Agent Orange lawsuit, brought on behalf of potentially millions of Vietnam War veterans and family members, charged that herbicides used for military purposes during the war caused a wide range of health problems. This article first reviews the current national debate over how mass toxic tort controversies should be handled, including key legislative reform options, and describes how attention is increasingly focused on ways that the court system might better cope with mass toxic torts. The principal events of the Agent Orange litigation are then summarized, by which the litigation was consolidated into a massive class action, the class action was settled, and a streamlined plan for distributing the settlement fund was adopted. The article evaluates the outcome of the litigation, and discusses whether the solution there can and should be broadly applied to other mass toxic tort cases. This question depends, in part, on a series of complex legal and practical issues, but the author suggests that the question will also depend on what institutional role we expect the judiciary to play within society.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid↗
PubMed1985

Unraveling the effects of compensation, litigation, and employment on treatment response in chronic pain.

Although it has often been suggested that chronic pain patients who are receiving workmen's compensation or who have litigation pending are less likely to benefit from treatment, the results of outcome studies of this question conducted by various pain clinics have been inconsistent. We hypothesized that poorer outcome in such patients may be related to the fact that they are less likely to be working and that the inconsistent results in the literature may therefore be explained by variability among studies in the percentages of patients who are receiving compensation (or who have litigation pending) who are also working. We examined the relationships among compensation, litigation, employment, and short- and long-term treatment response in a series of 454 chronic pain patients. Compensation benefits and employment status both predicted poorer short-term outcome in univariate analyses; however, when employment and compensation were jointly used to predict outcome in multiple regression analyses, only employment was significant. In additional analyses, only employment significantly predicted long-term outcome, whereas compensation and litigation did not. Our results suggest that it would be valuable to redirect attention away from the deleterious effects of the 'compensation neurosis' and toward the roles of activity and employment in the treatment and rehabilitation of chronic pain patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Laparoscopic bowel injuries: forty litigated gynaecological cases in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical circumstances and the clinical and legal outcomes of 40 laparoscopic bowel injuries that were litigated in Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 40 litigated cases of laparoscopic bowel injury, from 1990 to the end of 1998, provided by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The laparoscopy was performed for diagnosis (n = 13), tubal occlusion (n = 15), and as an operative therapeutic procedure (n = 12). Injuries were related to the initial peritoneal entry in 22 (55%) women (19 during the closed technique and 3 with the open technique). Of these, the injury was due to the primary trocar (n = 17), scalpel (n = 1), Veress needle (n = 1), Veress needle or undetermined (n = 2), and fascial suture (n = 1). The small bowel was injured in 9 of 11 entries by the trocar during diagnostic laparoscopy and in 6 of 14 tubal occlusions. Five injuries in the tubal occlusion group were attributed to "cautery." The injury was recognized intra-operatively in 55% of cases. The clinical outcome was uncomplicated in 85% of patients. There was no difference in clinical outcome between small versus large bowel injuries and between intra-operative versus post-operative diagnosis of the injury. The litigation outcome was favourable to the physician in 75% of cases. Recognition was delayed in 45% of cases and this was associated with 67% of the litigation outcomes unfavourable to physicians. CONCLUSIONS: (1) The initial laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity remains the major contributor to bowel injury in laparoscopic surgery. (2) The open (Hasson) technique does not prevent bowel injuries. (3) Delayed recognition was a major factor in assessment of liability.

Colon↗
PubMed2003

Using litigation to improve child mental health services: promises and pitfalls.

Litigation against state governments has been one of the strategies to improve services for children with emotional and behavioral problems. The results of such litigation have been spotty in terms of expanding and improving services. Cases in North Carolina and Hawaii are used as examples of successful litigation that had substantial impacts, resulting in new, more appropriate services and expanded budgets. The similarities and differences in these two cases are discussed, as are the elements that appear to contribute to success and the risks associated with such litigation.

Budgets↗
PubMed2003

Litigation and the lingual nerve.

PURPOSE: A "malpractice crisis" exists in the United States. Litigation analysis helps to understand the causes and may be useful in prevention of suits. This study reviews litigation regarding the lingual nerve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Jury verdict reports were obtained from a computerized legal database for the years 1987 through 2000. The study reviews all state and federal civil trials in the United States. Reviews compile information on plaintiffs and defendants, allegations of wrong-doing, reasons for litigation, anatomic sites of injuries, specialties of expert witnesses, verdict results, and awards received. RESULTS: Thirty-three suits from 12 states were obtained. Dentists or oral surgeons were involved in 87%, and otolaryngologists were involved in 13% of suits. Tooth extractions were involved in 79%, and 50% of these resulted in financial awards. Lack of informed consent was alleged in 52% of suits overall and in 46% of tooth extraction suits. Expert witnesses were of the same specialty for both sides in 81%. Inadequate training and selection of the wrong surgical approach were alleged in 18% and 15%, respectively. Anatomic variations were thought to be present in 15%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must be aware of anatomic variations and regions in which injury to the lingual nerve frequently occurs. Written informed consent may help decrease litigation in known risk regions.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed2003

Utility of the trail making test in the assessment of malingering in a sample of mild traumatic brain injury litigants.

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most commonly administered tests in neuropsychological assessments. It has been shown to be a valid indicator of brain damage due to traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as a number of other neuropathological conditions. TMT error and ratio scores have been suggested as possible markers of malingering. The present study examined the utility of various TMT scores as malingering measures in 94 TBI litigants. Litigants were divided into those suspected of (n = 27) and those not suspected of malingering (n = 67) based on scores obtained on the Test of Memory Malingering and/or the Rey 15-Item Test. TMT errors did not discriminate between suspected and nonsuspected malingerers; however, the overall level of performance on the TMT was suppressed in suspected malingerers. The TMT ratio score was significantly lower in litigants suspected of malingering, although the clinical utility of this ratio is minimal. Results of the present study suggest using caution when interpreting TMT scores as markers of malingering in TBI litigants.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Physicians' attitudes toward litigation and defensive practice: development of a scale.

The authors' threefold purpose in this article was to (a) propose a model of the relationship between the emotional aspects of physicians' attitudes to medical errors (e.g., fear of litigation) and their functional consequences (e.g., tendency to defensive practice); (b) develop a measure of some of these attitudes; and (c) provide empirical support for some of the relationships in the model. Medical students and physicians responded to a questionnaire concerning their attitudes toward uncertainty and medical error. The dependent variables were two dimensions of attitudes to uncertainty ("reluctance to disclose uncertainty" and "stress from uncertainty") and four dimensions of attitudes to medical error ("fear of litigation," "support for self-regulation," "tendency to defensive practice," and "self-disclosure of errors"). Stress from uncertainty correlated with fear of malpractice litigation and defensive practice. They concluded that interventions that aim to increase physicians' tolerance of uncertainty may also reduce their fear of malpractice litigation and their tendency to defensive practice.

Attitude↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The role of litigation in human research accountability.

This essay examines and analyzes the recent and dramatic series of personal injury lawsuits instituted against those individuals and institutions that conduct and monitor human research. It discusses the social engineering functions of tort litigation, outlines the legal elements and viability of lawsuits against those who conduct and monitor human research, and evaluates and predicts what role tort litigation will play in fulfilling the goals of accountability in the context of human research and human research regulation. In general, tort law engenders two forms of accountability: retrospective and prospective. Retrospective accountability is backward looking, focusing on harms that have already occurred, their culprits, and the reimbursement of individuals for their injuries. Prospective accountability is forward looking in that it encourages actors and institutions to fulfill responsibilities toward individuals in order that harm does not occur, or at least that the risk of harm is decreased. This article argues that research litigation is not, and will probably never become, an effective means of ensuring retrospective accountability in regard to research injuries and ethical violations. Paradoxically though, the current wave of research litigation may serve an important and even key role in encouraging and ensuring prospective accountability.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed1991

Forty years of litigation involving medical students and their education: I. General educational issues.

An analysis of reported state and federal adjudication from 1950 through 1989 was undertaken to identify trends in litigation involving medical students and undergraduate medical education. Of the 110 decisions cited, 51 (46%) involved disputes over general educational issues. A majority of the decisions affecting general education involved admissions and dismissal processes. Recently courts have begun scrutinizing readmission, course repetition, and cheating. Medical schools have accommodated to judicial scrutiny of general educational issues and have prevailed more often than claimants in litigation during this period, but litigation has not decreased as precedent and procedure have become clearer. Instead, litigation has continued unabated in alternative areas and at different levels of the educational process.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗
PubMed2001

An overview of the current state of radiation litigation.

Over the last three decades, radiation litigation has become a unique field of toxic tort litigation, with many new precedent setting decisions providing guidelines establishing how cases will be litigated in the future. This article will provide a summary of the status of the issues that are being litigated in radiation cases, and suggest recommendations on how pending issues should be resolved in the future.

Environmental Exposure↗
PubMed2001

Application of the Supreme Court's Daubert criteria in radiation litigation.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in litigation. This standard is known as the Daubert criteria, named after the pertinent case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert criteria require the courts to determine whether an expert's testimony reflects scientific knowledge, whether his/her findings are derived by the scientific method, and whether the work product is based on good science. The Daubert criteria are especially important in radiation litigation because issues involving radiation doses and effects are often complex and thus a jury will typically rely heavily on the analysis and opinions of experts. According to the Daubert criteria, scientific opinions must be based on a methodology that has a valid, testable hypothesis; has been subject to peer review; and is generally accepted in the scientific community. Additionally, the expert must be qualified to present opinions based on the methodology. Although the application of the Daubert criteria in radiation litigation is highly dependent on the specific court and judge presiding over the case, there have been recent high-profile cases in which application of the criteria has resulted in the dismissal of analysis and opinions offered by scientific experts. Reasons for the dismissals have included basic scientific errors such as failure of the expert to consider all possible explanations for an observed phenomenon, the selective use of data by the expert, and the failure to acknowledge and resolve inconsistencies between the expert's results and those of other investigators. This paper reviews the Daubert criteria as they apply to radiation litigation and provides examples of the application of the criteria from recent judgments involving the Three Mile Island and Hanford Downwinders cases.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Device-related litigation & clinical engineering.

The investigation of patient-related incidents often must include consideration of the role of the associated medical devices. In addition to being good practice from quality review perspectives, federally mandated MDR requirements generally need to include clinical engineering input. Medical devices also play a significant role in patient litigation aimed at medical providers, hospitals and device manufacturers. Clinical engineering has an important role to play in supporting and tracking litigation as it relates to medical equipment. This role requires an understanding of the litigation process and active participation as a claim progresses. It also should include careful evaluation of the assertions and defenses raised by the various parties both during and at the conclusion of litigation.

Biomedical Engineering↗