Medical malpractice litigation following humeral fractures in the United States

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study is to characterize malpractice claims against orthopedic surgeons treating humeral fractures and determine factors associated with plaintiff verdicts and settlements. Methods The Westlaw legal database was queried for all cases involving humeral fractures. Patient demographics, causes cited for litigation, case outcomes, and indemnity payments were collected to determine common factors that lead plaintiffs to pursue legal action. Results Fifty-seven cases were identified that met inclusion criteria. The mean plaintiff age was 52.5 years with 61% female. The most common category of negligence was treatment error, which occurred in 29 claims (51%). The most common types of damages incurred were functional limitation (40%), nerve injury (32%), and malunion/nonunion (26%). Overall, 42 cases (74%) resulted in a defense verdict. Four cases (7%) resulted in settlements and 11 cases (19%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts. Cases that resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements were treated with intramedullary nails more often than those with defense verdicts (27% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.036). Discussion These findings highlight the importance of effective communication with patients regarding treatment modalities, risks and benefits, and prognosis of their injury. Level of evidence IV; Case Series using Large Database; Epidemiology Study