HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ROSENBLATT, R. A. Articles by HURST, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by ROSENBLATT, R. A. Articles by HURST, A.

An Analysis of Closed Obstetric Malpractice Claims

From the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington

Abstract

We reviewed all closed obstetric claims in the records of a major physician-sponsored malpractice insurer that has written policies from 1982 to the present. Of the 54 files closed during the 6.5-year period covered by this study, 21 (39%) involved physician reports of bad outcomes that did not lead to a formal claim. Of the 33 formal claims, 14 (42%) were dismissed, either by the plaintiff's attorney or by the courts. Eighteen of the remaining 19 claims were settled before trial, with an average payment to the plaintiff of $185,000. The one suit that went to trial resulted in a defense verdict. A review of the case histories demonstrated that in the majority of cases when a payment was made, probable medical negligence had taken place. Non-meritorious claims were not compensated. For those cases in which a payment was made, the size of the settlement was commensurate with the seriousness of the injury, which almost always involved damage to the infant. Poor physician judgment was the most common source of error

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Baker Reconsidering the Harvard Medical Practice Study Conclusions about the Validity of Medical Malpractice Claims J. Law Med. Ethics, September 1, 2005; 33(3): 501 - 514. [PDF]