Which is the better diagnosis for a malpractice suit?

[Muenkel 0]

Brain tumor, TIA's or a brain anuerysm.

Just curious....

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[freeflir29 0]

But has the case of Ghonnoherpasyphillitus cleared up?

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Brain tumor, TIA's or a brain anuerysm.

Just curious....

Chris

Not sure why you are asking, but a quick Google search led me to http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/malpractice/malpractice.htm.

They claim:
"The top five diseases that receive monetary awards for malpractice, in terms of dollar value, are breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer (including colon cancer and rectal cancer), heart attack, and appendicitis. Surprisingly, the main allegation is a form of misdiagnosis, either delayed diagnosis or or mismanagement of diagnostic testing."

Walt

[peregrinerose 0]

TIAs all by themselves are not really horrible, it's the underlying cause that can be an issue (carotid artery disease, for example). Aneurism can be tough, as sometimes there are no symptoms until it ruptures and the patient is dead. Brain tumors are variable, you can have a brain tumor that doesn't change and is non cancerous, so isn't an issue.

Basically, there is no 'best' diagnosis of the three, it depends on individual case.

I've seen some lawsuits, fortunately not involving me, that were completely frivolous in nature, and I've seen others that were very well founded. People really are too lawsuit happy.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[kbordson 8]

If this is for a story... which I hope it is. Please tell me this is for a creative writing adventure

TIA are transient in nature, and once resolved then no permanent damage/harm, so no lawsuit. But as mentioned above, the cause should be investigated as it might progress to a stroke and cause permanent damage.

Brain aneurysm, again as mentioned, is typically a sudden onset, no prior symptoms except for the severe headache, nausea/vomitting as the vessel is expanding. But again, look at the cause. Is it congenital (meaning it's been a ticking time bomb since birth), or due to hypertension/atherosclerosis that should have been treated, or due to a head injury that should have been worked up, or a cocaine habit that it's hard to sue the doctor for?

Brain tumor would be the most likely to win a case, especially if there was a delay in diagnosis and progression of damage. (and a sobbing widow with 3-4 children - all crying and pitiful for the judge)

There are several key components to a medical lawsuit. There has to be a breech of duty (such as negligence, or not meeting standard of care), harm and proof that the breech of duty led to the harm.

The US tends to be rather sue happy and some will go to the lawyer if no harm even exists. The lawyer then has to review the files and see if it's worth the bother of proceding... but if that one says "no case" then the person can just go to another lawyer and another, until they get one that will procede. Neuro isn't typically one of the "hot" areas sued. But, for your story, the ER is. (Typically it's OB and Anesthesia that gets most of the lawsuits - not necessarily cuz anything breech of duty was done, rather, there are more emotional expectations and sometimes less of a relationship)

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

(Typically it's OB and Anesthesia that gets most of the lawsuits - not necessarily cuz anything breech of duty was done, rather, there are more emotional expectations and sometimes less of a relationship)

Very true. Pediatricians are another. Same reason. I was talking with a malpractice insurance agent, and a lot of specialties are having to pay 6 figures per year for insurance premiums (and that is for one person!!).

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[lawrocket 3]

I used to defend doctors for a living. In my opinion, the answer depends a lot on the facts involved, with the exception of transient ischemic attacks.

TIAs are ranked the lowest. The fact is that they are transient, and don't cause too much damage, although in 20 years a brain scan ma reveal microischemic vascular changes.

Aneurisms are number 2. If there are symptoms of an aneurism that go undiagnosed, then usually it's a wrongful death lawsuit. However, the good part for doctors is that it can be defended because the dx of aneurism is difficult, and the treatment itself is highly dangerous. A patient may be circling the drain anyway when the dx is made, although they are getting better at treating them.

Cancer would be tops on my list. It's a word everybody fears, and typically you'll have a plaintiff who is still alive and looks miserable for a jury. THat really increases the value.

My wife is hotter than your wife.