You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 114 No. 3, March 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Ophthalmic malpractice lawsuits with large monetary awards

M. F. Kraushar and J. H. Robb
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark 07090, USA.

Malpractice claims against ophthalmologists that were closed with patient indemnification of at least $250,000(18% of all eye claims closed with payments to patients) were analyzed for risk prevention. The incident of alleged malpractice occurred within 1 month of the initial physician-patient encounter in 43% of claims and on the initial encounter in 17%. Cataract was the most frequent problem for which these patients sought treatment. Eighty-four percent of these patients sustained injuries resulting in legal blindness or worse. The most frequent complication of treatment (25%) was failure or delay in diagnosis of detached retina, or negligent treatment resulting in a retinal detachment. The most frequent factors influencing the decision to seek a settlement included altered records, poor documentation, informed consent problems, failure to see the patient promptly, and failure to obtain or follow the advice of a consultant.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

"Near misses" in a cataract theatre: how do we improve understanding and documentation?
Mandal et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1565-1568.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Informed Consent and Decision Making by Cataract Patients
Kiss et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:94-98.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.