Poor agreement among expert witnesses in bile duct injury malpractice litigation: An expert panel survey

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 248, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 815-820

  De Reuver, Philip R ^a   Dijkgraaf, Marcel G W ^a   Gevers, Sjef K M ^a   Gouma, Dirk J ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BILE DUCT INJURY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DELAYED DIAGNOSIS; EXPERIENCE; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; IATROGENIC DISEASE; INJURY SEVERITY; LAW SUIT; LAWYER; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL LIABILITY; NEGLIGENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; SURGICAL MORTALITY; TREATMENT INDICATION; BILE DUCT; CHOLECYSTITIS; CHOLELITHIASIS; INJURY; LEGAL ASPECT; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROGNOSIS;

BILE DUCTS; CHOLECYSTECTOMY, LAPAROSCOPIC; CHOLECYSTITIS; CHOLECYSTOLITHIASIS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALPRACTICE; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 56149108093     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318186de35     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Medical malpractice. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:283-292.
2. Brahams D. Truth, bias, and the medical "expert". Lancet. 1999;353: 1380.
3. Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488-496.
4. Maeda S, Sakamoto N, Nobutomo K. The problems of medical malpractice litigation in Japan: the signi?cant factors responsible for the tendency of patients to avoid litigation. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2001;3:56-62.
5. Kessler DP, Summerton N, Graham JR. Effects of the medical liability system in Australia, the UK, and the USA. Lancet. 2006;368:240-246.
6. Taheri PA, Butz DA, Anderson S, et al. Medical liability-the crisis, the reality, and the data: the University of Michigan story. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:290-296.
7. Sobel DL, Loughlin KR, Coogan CL. Medical malpractice liability in clinical urology: a survey of practicing urologists. J Urol. 2006;175: 1847-1851.
8. Kern KA. Medicolegal perspectives on laparoscopic bile duct injuries. Surg Clin North Am. 1994;74:979-984.
9. Weintraub MI. Medical expert witnesses. Lancet. 1999;353:2076.
10. Spencer FC, Guice KS. The expert medical witness: concerns, limits, and remedies. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2000;85:22-23.
11. McHenry CR, Bif? WL, Chapman WC, et al. Expert witness testimony: the problem and recommendations for oversight and reform. Surgery. 2005;137:274-278.
12. Weinstein JB. Expert witness testimony: a trial judge's perspective. Neurol Clin. 1999;17:355-362.
13. Andrew LB. Expert witness testimony: the ethics of being a medical expert witness. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006;24:715-731.
14. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024-2033.
15. Morris JA Jr, Carrillo Y, Jenkins JM, et al. Surgical adverse events, risk management, and malpractice outcome: morbidity and mortality review is not enough. Ann Surg. 2003;237:844-851.
16. Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. JAMA. 1992;267:958-960.
17. Margo CE. Peer and expert opinion and the reliability of implicit case review. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:614-618.
18. Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Variation in expert opinion in medical malpractice review. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:1049-1054.
19. Flum DR, Cheadle A, Prela C, et al. Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy and survival in medicare bene?ciaries. JAMA. 2003;290:2168-2173.
20. Kern KA. Malpractice litigation involving laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cost, cause, and consequences. Arch Surg. 1997;132:392-397.
21. Strasberg SM. Biliary injury in laparoscopic surgery: part 1. Processes used in determination of standard of care in misidenti?cation injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:598-603.
22. de Reuver PR, Wind J, Cremers JE, et al. Litigation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An evaluation of the Dutch arbitration system for medical malpractice. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:328-334.
23. Bergman JJ, van den Brink GR, Rauws EA, et al. Treatment of bile duct lesions after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gut. 1996;38:141-147.
24. Siegel S, Castellan N. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 1988.
25. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
26. de Reuver PR, Rauws EA, Lameris JS, et al. Claims for damages as a result of bile-duct injury during (laparoscopic) cholecystectomy [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007;151:1732-1736.
27. Lomas J, Anderson G, Enkin M, et al. The role of evidence in the consensus process. Results from a Canadian consensus exercise. JAMA. 1988;259:3001-3005.
28. Hugh TB, Tracy GD. Hindsight bias in medicolegal expert reports. Med J Aust. 2002;176:277-278.
29. Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325: 245-251.
30. Guidelines for expert witness testimony for the specialty of medical genetics. Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Committee, American College of Medical Genetics. Genet Med 2000;2:367-368.
31. Friston M. Roles and responsibilities of medical expert witnesses. BMJ. 2005;331:305-306.
32. Scarrow AM, Scarrow MR. Providing expert witness testimony. Surg Neurol. 2002;57:278-282.
33. Satiani B. Expert witness testimony: rules of engagement. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2006;40:223-227.
34. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:450-455.
35. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.
36. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Project group medical experts in judicial procedures. Available at: http://www.rechten.vu.nl/iwmd. Accessed January 2008.
37. Hirshfeld EB. From the Of?ce of the General Counsel. Economic considerations in treatment decisions and the standard of care in medical malpractice litigation. JAMA. 1990;264:2004, 2006-2007, 2011-2012.