Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 25, 2025

Comprehensive Autopsy Program for Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
Published on: July 19, 2019
Body of Evidence: Do Autopsy Findings Impact Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes?
Rajshri M Gartland, Laura C Myers, J Bryan Iorgulescu1
1Department of Pathology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Objective:
Clinicians may hesitate to advocate for autopsies out of concern for increased malpractice risk if the pathological findings at time of death differ from the clinical findings. We aimed to understand the impact of autopsy findings on malpractice claim outcomes.
Methods:
Closed malpractice claims with loss dates between 1995 and 2015 involving death related to inpatient care at 3 Harvard Medical School hospitals were extracted from a captive malpractice insurer's database. These claims were linked to patients' electronic health records and their autopsy reports. Using the Goldman classification system, 2 physician reviewers blinded to claim outcome determined whether there was major, minor, or no discordance between the final clinical diagnoses and pathologic diagnoses. Claims were compared depending on whether an autopsy was performed and whether there was major versus minor/no clinical-pathologic discordance. Primary outcomes included percentage of claims paid through settlement or plaintiff verdict and the amount of indemnity paid, inflation adjusted.
Results:
Of 293 malpractice claims related to an inpatient death that could be linked to patients' electronic health records, 89 claims (30%) had an autopsy performed by either the hospital or medical examiner. The most common claim allegation was an issue with clinician diagnosis, which was statistically less common in the autopsy group (18% versus 38%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in percentage of claims paid whether an autopsy was performed or not (42% versus 41%, P = 0.90) and no difference in median indemnity of paid claims after adjusting for number of defendants ($1,180,537 versus $906,518, P = 0.15). Thirty-one percent of claims with hospital autopsies performed demonstrated major discordance between autopsy and clinical findings. Claims with major clinical-pathologic discordance also did not have a statistically significant difference in percentage paid (44% versus 41%, P > 0.99) or amount paid ($895,954 versus $1,494,120, P = 0.10) compared with claims with minor or no discordance.
Conclusions:
Although multiple factors determine malpractice claim outcome, in this cohort, claims in which an autopsy was performed did not result in more paid outcomes, even when there was major discordance between clinical and pathologic diagnoses.
Insights
Autopsies in inpatient death cases did not increase malpractice claims paid, even with major clinical-pathologic diagnosis discrepancies. This study suggests performing autopsies does not heighten malpractice risk for clinicians.
Area of Science:
- Medical malpractice litigation
- Pathology and diagnostics
- Healthcare quality improvement
Background:
- Clinicians may avoid recommending autopsies due to fear of malpractice claims if autopsy findings contradict clinical diagnoses.
- Understanding the relationship between autopsy findings and malpractice claim outcomes is crucial for clinical practice and risk management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the impact of autopsy performance and clinical-pathologic diagnosis concordance on malpractice claim outcomes.
- To determine if performing an autopsy increases the likelihood of paid malpractice claims or higher indemnity payments.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of closed malpractice claims (1995-2015) related to inpatient deaths at three Harvard Medical School hospitals.
- Linking claims data with electronic health records and autopsy reports; physician reviewers assessed clinical-pathologic concordance using the Goldman classification.
- Comparison of claim outcomes (paid percentage, indemnity amount) based on autopsy performance and degree of diagnostic discordance.
Main Results:
- Of 293 claims, 89 (30%) had autopsies. Allegations of diagnostic errors were less common in the autopsy group (18% vs. 38%).
- No significant difference in claim payment rates (42% vs. 41%) or median indemnity payments was observed between claims with and without autopsies.
- Major clinical-pathologic discordance occurred in 31% of hospital autopsies, yet these claims showed no statistically significant difference in payment rates or amounts compared to those with minor/no discordance.
Conclusions:
- In this cohort, performing an autopsy did not lead to an increased number of paid malpractice claims.
- Even in cases with major discrepancies between clinical and pathological diagnoses, autopsies did not negatively impact malpractice claim outcomes.
- These findings suggest that concerns about increased malpractice risk should not deter clinicians from advocating for autopsies.
Related Concept Videos
Torts I
Intentional...
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care

