A recent spate of publicity about exceedingly large medical malpractice awards* is emotionally jarring, but distressed health care providers should note that such awards are extremely unusual.

A recent analysis of CRICO’s national Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS)—which represents 30 percent of malpractice filings across the United States—shows that for every 1,000 cases closed, just four involved payments in excess of $3 million.

While errors in the process of delivering health care are not uncommon, a formal allegation of negligence is rare. Annually, the U.S. averages about 30,000 malpractice filings stemming from more than two billion physician-patient encounters. And in 70 percent of the cases that are brought forward, clinical experts determine that the plaintiff's damages were not caused by substandard care—leading to those cases being dropped, denied, or dismissed (i.e., closed with no indemnity payment).

For the cases in the CBS study that did result in a payment, 93 percent involved an award or settlement of less than $1,000,000; 99 percent closed for under $3,000,000. Of course, extraordinary awards do draw media attention (which routinely ignores the fact that they are often significantly reduced by judicial intervention) and trigger introspection amongst clinicians suddenly feeling extra vulnerable.

Certainly, some large awards stem from systems failures that demand immediate attention and long term plans to ensure the risk of preventable harm has been addressed. Non-involved individuals and organizations who wonder “could that happen here?” are wise to go through some assessments, and, if necessary, proactive risk reduction efforts. Astute health care leaders, however, will also look beyond the headlines to determine if the underlying issues are unique to that event or if they represent a common systemic risk.

From a patient safety perspective, the heightened awareness sparked by a large award can be harnessed to address related concerns. But it is also often more prudent to study a cluster of “typical” adverse events that share contributing factors than it is to align improvement efforts entirely with a singular, outlier event. Broad and dynamic insight to the types of events that have led to malpractice allegations in your work environment—and the ability to compare your experiences to peers—is more likely to guide appropriate allocation of patient safety resources than is relying on headlines.

*Recent Large-award Cases in the News

Latest News from CRICO

Get all your medmal and patient safety news here.

    In the Wake of a New Report on Diagnostic Errors SIDM Invites Collaboration and Policy Action

    A new report by CRICO and Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence provides the first national estimate of permanent morbidity and mortality resulting from diagnostic errors across all clinical settings. The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM) works to raise awareness of the burden of diagnostic error as a major public health issue and calls for collaboration and policy action on the issue.

    Burden of Serious Harms from Diagnostic Error in the USA

    New analysis of national data by a multidisciplinary research team from the Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence and CRICO, found that across all clinical settings, an estimated 795,000 Americans die or are permanently disabled by diagnostic error each year.

    Diagnostic Errors Linked to Nearly 800,000 Deaths or Cases of Permanent Disability in U.S.

    CRICO in partnership with Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence, conducted a study that indicates misdiagnosis of disease or other medical conditions leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities each year in the U.S.
Cookies help us improve your website experience.
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies.