• Peter F Svider, Anna A Pashkova, Gian-Paul Vidal, Andrew C Mauro, Jean Anderson Eloy, and Ravi J Chokshi.
• J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2013 Oct 1; 17 (10): 1732-8.

BackgroundConsequences accompanying esophageal perforation make this complication a prime litigation target. We characterize factors in jury verdicts and settlements regarding esophageal perforation, including operative procedure, patient demographics, alleged cause(s) of malpractice, outcome, and other factors.MethodsPertinent court records were examined for the aforementioned factors.ResultsGastroenterologists, general surgeons, and anesthesiologists were the most commonly named defendants. Two thirds of outcomes were for the defendant, and 11.9 % were settled (median--$650,000); 20.3% resulted in awarded damages (median--$1.2 M). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was the most commonly litigated procedure, followed by intubation and Nissen fundoplication. Necessity of repair, delayed diagnosis, death, and inadequate consent were the most frequently cited factors in litigation.ConclusionsAn understanding of the factors important in determining legal responsibility is of great interest for practitioners in multiple specialties. The requirement of surgical repair and a delay in diagnosis are two of the most common factors present in litigated cases resulting in a payment. The importance of explicitly listing esophageal perforation in the informed consent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, abdominal surgery, and any patients at risk of intubation injury needs to be emphasized.

17 keywords...

hide…