A Comprehensive Analysis of Litigation in Organ Transplantation for Allegations of Insufficient Policy Coverage, Discrimination and Malpractice.

Abstract

Introduction: Transplantation is a field with unique medical and administrative challenges that involve an equally diverse array of stakeholders. Expectantly, the litigation stemming from this field should be similarly nuanced. There is a paucity of comprehensive reviews characterizing this medicolegal landscape. Design: The Caselaw Access Project Database was used to collect official court briefs of 2053 lawsuits related to kidney, liver, heart, lung, and pancreas transplantation. A thematic analysis was undertaken to characterize grounds for litigation, defendant type, and outcomes. Cases were grouped into policy, discrimination, poor or unsuccessful outcome, or other categories. Results: One hundred sixty-four court cases were included for analysis. Cases involving disputes over policy coverage were the most common across all organ types (N = 55, 33.5%). This was followed by poor outcomes (N = 51, 31.1%), allegations of discrimination against prison systems and employers (N = 37, 22.6%) and other (N = 21, 12.8%). Defendants involved in discrimination trials won with the greatest frequency (N = 29, 90.62%). Defendants implicated in policy suits won 65.3% (N = 32), poor outcomes 62.2% (N = 28), and other 70% (N = 14). Of the 51 cases involving poor outcomes, plaintiffs indicated lack of informed consent in 23 (45.1%). Conclusion: Reconsidering the informed consent process may be a viable means of mitigating future legal action. Most discrimination suits favoring defendants suggested previous concerns of structural injustices in transplantation may not be founded. The prevalence of policy-related cases could be an indication of financial burden on patients. Future work and advocacy will need to substantiate these concerns and address change where legal recourse falls short.