Solution Suggestions for Medical Malpractice Claims
    PDF
    Cite
    Share
    Request
    Review
    P: 288-294
    December 2022

    Solution Suggestions for Medical Malpractice Claims

    The Bulletin of Legal Medicine 2022;27(3):288-294
    1. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye
    2. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye
    No information available.
    No information available
    Received Date: 12.05.2021
    Accepted Date: 02.08.2021
    Publish Date: 01.12.2022
    PDF
    Cite
    Share
    Request

    ABSTRACT

    While it is hoped that medical practice errors will be minimized in parallel with the development and widespread use in science and technology; the increasing number of lawsuits filed for unfair medical malpractice claims and the amount of compensation paid leads to the development of defensive medicine. Consequently, physicians’ defensive behavior models such as using radiological methods such as unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, X-ray, ultrasonography and mammography, unnecessary hospitalization of the patient, unnecessary tests, unnecessary consultations, unnecessary biopsy, unnecessary consultations, unnecessary cesarean section and unnecessary drug prescribing are developing. In addition, it is observed that physician candidates with higher success they avoid branches which have more medical malpractice claims, but that are vital to human life. In this study, in order to prevent defensive medical behaviors and to protect physicians from unfair medical malpractice claims, the literature including the discussions made especially in the United States of America was reviewed, and in the light of these, solution proposals were defined by taking into account the facts of our country.

    Keywords: Malpractice, defensive medicine, legislation and jurisprudence, compensation and redress

    References

    1
    Albek E, Soysal Z, Eke M. İatrojenik hastalıklarla ilgili adli tıp sorunları. In: Soysal Z, Çakalır C, editors. Adli tıp, cilt I. 1st ed. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Basımevi ve Film Merkezi; 1999. p. 61-71.
    2
    Özer Ö, Taştan K, Set T, Çayır Y, Şener MT. Tıbbi hatalı uygulamalar. Dicle Tıp Dergisi. 2015;42(3):394-397.
    3
    Aşırdizer M. Hekimlik ve hukukun kesişim noktası: tıbbi hukuk. Google Books and Google Play: Mahmut Asirdizer E-Book (GGKEY:TLYC7H50EH9), 2021.
    4
    Aküzüm U. Danıştay kararları ışığında tıbbı uygulama hataları. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi. 2018;7(13):71-90.
    5
    Akalın HE. Tıbbi Hatalar: nedir, nasıl önlenebilir? ANKEM Dergisi. 2001;15(3):244-246.
    6
    Canatan H, Erdoğan A, Yılmaz S. Hastanelerde yapılan tıbbi hataların türleri ve nedenleri üzerine bir araştırma: istanbul ilinde özel bir hastane ile ilgili anket çalışması ve konuya ilişkin çözüm önerileri. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi. 2015;2(2):82-89. https://doi.org/10.5455/sad.2015131439231160
    7
    Doğramacı YK, Erkol ZZ. Tıbbi uygulama hatası tazminatında yeni dönem: tüketici hukuku ve mahkemeleri. In: Erkol ZZ, Doğramacı YG, editörler. Tıp hukuku. 1. baskı. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2019. p. 117-123.
    8
    Günerli A. Anestezi uzmanlarının mesleki ve hukuki sorumlulukları, yasal hükümler, ilgili yasa ve yönetmelikler. Türk Anest Rean Der Dergisi. 2009;37(6):333-349.
    9
    Demir M. Professional and Legal Responsibilities of Anaesthesiologists, Legal Decrees, Relevant Legislation and Bylaws. J Turk Anaesth Int Care. 2008;57(3):225-252.
    10
    Can İÖ, Özkara E, Can M. Yargıtayda Karara Bağlanan Tıbbi Uygulama Hatası Dosyalarının Değerlendirilmesi. DEÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2011;25(2):69-76.
    11
    Güzel S, Yavuz MS, Aşırdizer M. The evaluation of malpraxis cases which had been negotiated by the general assem-bly of the council of forensic medicine (GACFM) for the contradictory opinions between the specialty commitee (SC) of council of forensic medicine (CFM) and supreme commitee on health (SCH). Bull Leg Med. 2002;7(1):14-20. https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.200271468
    12
    Bakar M. Türk toplumunda tıbbi malpraktis, hekimler ve sağlık personeline güven [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Adli Tıp Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Anabilim Dalı; 2016.
    13
    Kuruöz G. Acil serviste hasta ve hasta yakınlarına göre sağlıkta şiddet [Uzmanlık Tezi]. Aydın: Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Acil Tıp Anabilim Dalı; 2016.
    14
    Adler PA. Malicious prosecution suits as counterbalance to medical malpractice suits. Clev St L Rev. 1972;21(1):51-57.
    15
    Rosenbaum & Associated Medical Malpractice Law Firm [Internet]. A Comprehensive Look at Medical Malpractice Statistics [cited 2020 Dec 19] [about 19 screens]. Available from: https://www.rosenbaumfirm.com/medical-malpractice-statistics.html
    16
    Kırtışoğlu M. Yargıtay’da 2010-2017 Yılları arasında karara bağlanan hatalı tıbbi uygulama (malpraktis) dava kararlarının değerlendirilmesi [Uzmanlık Tezi]. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı; 2018.
    17
    Özkara E, Dokgöz H. Tıbbi uygulama hataları. In: Dokgöz H, editor. Adli tıp & adli bilimler, 2th ed. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi; 2019. p. 71-91.
    18
    Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-636. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
    19
    Goldberg R. Medical malpractice and compensation in the UK. Chi Kent L Rev. 2012;87(1):131.
    20
    Yau CWH, Leigh B, Liberati E, Punch D, Dixon-Woods M, Draycott T. Clinical negligence costs: taking action to safeguard NHS sustainability. BMJ. 2020;368:m552. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m552
    21
    Yang T, Zhang G, Wang X, Di S, Zhang H, Sun D, et al. Evaluation of medical malpractice litigations in China, 2002-2011. J Forensic Sci Med. 2016;2:185-189. https://doi.org/10.4103/2349-5014.197931
    22
    Palmer E. Law library of congress: Germany medical liability in a universal health care system. In: The Law Library of Congress, editor. Medical Liability: Canada, England and Wales, Germany, and India. Global Legal Research Center. 2009.
    23
    Weingart SN, McL Wilson R, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology of medical error. West J Med. 2000;172(6):390-393. https://doi.org/10.1136/ewjm.172.6.390
    24
    Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):774-777. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.774
    25
    Gundogmus UN, Erdogan MS, Sehiralti M, Kurtas O. A descriptive study of medical malpractice cases in Turkey. Ann Saudi Med. 2005;25(5):404-408. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2005.404
    26
    Tümer AR. 1995-2000 yıllarında Yüksek Sağlık Şurası’na gelen genel cerrahi vakalarının malpraktis yönünden değerlendirilmesi. Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi. 2003;19(1):11-16.
    27
    Türkan H, Tuğcu H. 2000-2004 yılları arasında Yüksek Sağlık Şurasında değerlendirilen acil servislerle ilgili tıbbi uygulama hataları. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 2004;46(3):226-231.
    28
    Pakiş I. Ölüm ya da ölü doğumla sonuçlanan tıbbi uygulama hatalarına yaklaşımda adli otopsinin rolü [Doktora Tezi]. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2006.
    29
    Toraman A, Çarıkçı İH. Defansif tıbbın nedenlerinin hekim gözüyle değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi. 2019;10(23):40-51. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.438697
    30
    Banaz M. Hekimlerin defansif tıp ve tıbbi hata tutumlarının incelenmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sağlık Yönetimi Programı; 2020.
    31
    Saka NE, Budak H. Malpraktis ve defansif tıp. In: Saka NE, editor. Adli tıp ve adli bilimlerde klinik uygulamalara bakış. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi; 2019. p. 395-408.
    32
    Önal G, Civaner M. The Dırectıve For Practıce Of Patıent Rıghts: A Step to Puttıng Into Practıce The Patıent Rıghts In Turkey. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Ethics. 2005;13(3):203-208.
    33
    Biçen E. Tıpta uzmanlık öğrencilerinin defansif tıp konusundaki tutumlarının araştırılması [Uzmanlık Tezi]. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı; 2018.
    34
    Baicker K, Chandra A. Defensive Medicine and Disappearing Doctors? Health & Medicine. 2005:24-31.
    35
    Kalaman KG. Hekimlerde tükenmişlik düzeyleri, kusurlu tıbbi uygulamalar ve defansif tıp uygulamaları arasındaki ilişki [Uzmanlık Tezi]. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı; 2019.
    36
    Sekhar MS, Vyas N. Defensive medicine: a bane to healthcare. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3(2):295-296. https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.113688
    37
    Torrey T, Kelly C [Internet]. Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs [cited 2021 May 10] [about 10 screens]. Available from: https://www.verywellhealth.com/defensive-medicine-2615160.
    38
    Yılmaz K. Adana ilinde sağlık çalışanlarının şiddete uğrama sıklığı ve sağlıkta şiddet konusundaki düşünceleri [Uzmanlık Tezi]. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı; 2020.
    39
    Kasap H, Akar T, Demirel B, Dursun AZ, Sarı S, Özkök A, et al. The Change of Preference Prioritıies on Examinatıon for Specialty in Medicine by Years of High Risky Medical Branches in Medical Malpractice. Bull Leg Med. 2015;20(1):34-37. https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.2015110917
    40
    Dippolito A, Braslow BM, Lombardo G, Hoddinott KM, Nace G, Stawicki SP. How David beat Goliath: History of physicians fighting frivolous lawsuits. OPUS 12 Scientist. 2008;2(1):1-8.
    41
    Witlin LT. 1987 Schwartz award: Countersuits by medical malpractice defendants against attorneys. J Leg Med. 1988;9(3):421-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648809513535
    42
    Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, DesRoches CM, Peugh J, Zapert K, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005;293(21):2609-2617. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.21.2609
    43
    Chimerine L, Eisenbrey R [Internet]. The Frivolous Case for Tort Law Change: Opponents of the Legal System Exaggerate Its Costs, Ignore Its Benefits (Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper) [cited 2021 May 10] [20 screens]. Available from: https://files.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/157/bp157.pdf
    44
    Kerr DN. Costs of safe medicine. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1980;14(3):153-156.
    45
    Greenbaum H. Physician countersuits: a cause without action. Pacific Law Journal. 1981;12:745-762.
    46
    Janzer JM. Countersuits to legal and medical malpractice actions: any chance for success? Marq L Rev. 1981;65(1):93-119.
    47
    Higgs JG. Physician countersuits--a solution to the malpractice dilemma? Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon). 1980;2(6):3-17.
    48
    Peters Jr PG. Health courts? Boston University Law Review. 2008;88:227-290.
    49
    Antony R [Internet]. Can Health Courts Cure the Malpractice System? [cited 2021 May 10] [About 20 screens]. Available from: https://www.physicianspractice.com/view/can-health-courts-cure-malpractice-system
    50
    Opper Jr RA, Yardley J (The NewYork Times) [Internet]. The 2000 Campaign: The Texas Governor; Bush Calls Himself Reformer; the Record Shows the Label Maybe a Stretch. [cited 2021 May 11] [About 6 screens]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/20/us/2000-campaign-texas-governor-bush-calls-himself-reformer-record-shows-label-may.html
    51
    Aaronson B (The NewYork Times) [Internet]. Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by Tort Laws. [cited 2021 May 11] [About 2 screens]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/even-with-counsel-texas-amputee-is-hindered-by-state-tort-laws.html
    52
    Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia [Internet]. 352 S.E.2d 73 (1986) Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas (December 12, 1986). [cited 2021 May 11] [About 6 screens]. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12343874787414637982&q=352+SE+2d+73&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
    53
    Tabarrok A (Forbes Magazine) [Internet]. On My Mind Give the Lawyer His Cut (10.03.2005). [cited 2021 May 11] [About 3 screens]. Available from: https://web.archve.org/web/20090123061928/ http://www.forbes.com/busness/free_forbes/2005/1003/042.html
    54
    ÖSYM. 2020-TUS 1. ve 2. Dönem Değerlendirme Raporu. Ankara: T.C. Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Başkanlığı (ÖSYM), 2001. https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2020/GENEL/TUSdonem1-2degrapor22012021.pdf
    2024 ©️ Galenos Publishing House