Do the Claims Hold Up? A Study of Medical Negligence Claims Against Neurologists

March 1, 2007

In Research and Publication
An in-depth review of 42 closed medical malpractice claims filed in the past 20 years against neurologist defendants covered by a common insurer. For each case, it was determined whether the neurologist had rendered harmful, substandard care and noted the case outcome.

In 23 of 42 claims (55 percent), there had been no harmful negligence, and payment on behalf of the neurologist occurred only once. The other 19 claims had negligent harm, but in 13 of them (68 percent) no payment was made on behalf of the negligent neurologist. In our series, the medical negligence system performed poorly, yielding a majority of inappropriate claims and no payment in a majority of appropriate claims.

Citation:
Cranberg, L. D., Glick, T. H. and Sato, L. (2007), Do the Claims Hold Up? A Study of Medical Negligence Claims Against Neurologists. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4: 155–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00085.x

CRICO home

Recent Coverage

Development of a Taxonomy for Characterising Medical Oncology-related Patient Safety and Quality Incidents: A Novel Approach

Trial and Error: Learning From Malpractice Claims in Childhood Surgery

Frequency and Nature of Communication and Handoff Failures in Medical Malpractice Claims

Do the Claims Hold Up? A Study of Medical Negligence Claims Against Neurologists