An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigations in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting from 1994-2019
Ashwin Palaniappan1, Frank Sellke1
1Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island.
Insights
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) litigation analysis reveals procedural errors are common. Defendant verdicts, often linked to these errors, suggest surgeons generally meet the standard of care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiothoracic Surgery
- Medical Malpractice Law
- Litigation Analysis
Background:
- Cardiothoracic surgery, particularly coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), is a highly litigated specialty.
- Understanding CABG litigation is crucial for surgeons to maintain standards of care and minimize legal risks.
- This study aimed to identify factors predicting litigation and verdict outcomes in CABG cases.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) litigations in the United States.
- To identify demographic, clinical, chronological, and verdict characteristics associated with CABG lawsuits.
- To determine predictive factors for litigation and verdict type in CABG cases.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive search of the Westlaw legal database was conducted for litigations between 1994 and 2019.
- A total of 307 litigations were initially identified, with 211 meeting inclusion criteria after screening.
- Data analyzed included patient demographics, clinical factors, case chronology, and legal verdicts.
Main Results:
- Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) litigations occurred across 33 states, with the highest concentrations in California, New York, and Florida.
- Defendant verdicts were most common (67.78%), followed by plaintiff verdicts (20.38%) and settlements (11.85%).
- Plaintiff verdicts were linked to myocardial infarction during hospitalization; procedural errors were the most common allegation (55.45%).
- Patient mortality was observed in 47.39% of cases, and the winter season showed the highest incidence of litigation and defendant verdicts.
Conclusions:
- Defendant verdicts in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) cases were significantly associated with allegations of procedural errors, failure to monitor, and pre-existing congestive heart failure.
- The high rate of defendant verdicts, particularly during the winter season, suggests that surgeons often adhere to the legal standard of care.
- Analysis provides insights into common allegations and outcomes in CABG-related legal disputes.
Background:
Cardiothoracic surgery is one of the more highly litigated medical specialties, and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) constitutes a substantial portion of cardiothoracic surgery cases. Therefore, understanding litigations relating to CABG would be of benefit to surgeons working to uphold the standards of care that their patients seek and minimize their own legal liability. This study analyzed CABG litigations to identify predictive factors of litigation and verdict type.
Methods:
This study utilized the Westlaw legal database to compile litigations from 1994-2019 across the United States, and resulted in 307 total litigations. After individual screening, 211 litigations met the criteria for inclusion, and were analyzed for demographic, clinical, chronological, and verdict characteristics.
Results:
Litigations were present in 33 US states, with California, New York, and Florida having the most litigations. Defendant verdicts were reached in 67.78% of litigations, followed by 20.38% of plaintiff verdicts, and 11.85% of settlements. Plaintiff verdicts were associated with the incidence of myocardial infarction during hospitalization. The winter season had the most litigations (42.18%), and the most defendant verdicts (37.76%). Patient mortality occurred in 47.39% of litigations. The most common alleged reason for litigation was a procedural error (55.45%).
Conclusions:
Defendant verdicts were significantly associated with an alleged reason of procedural errors, an alleged reason of a failure to monitor, and congestive heart failure present in patients. The common nature of defendant verdicts, and the significantly greater occurrence of defendant verdicts during the highly litigated winter season, suggest that surgeons frequently satisfy the legal standard of care.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
01:26Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care