Background: While the liability risks for obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) physicians are widely recognized, little is known about how trainees have been involved in ob/gyn lawsuits. Objectives: To characterize involvement of trainees in malpractice lawsuits related to ob/gyn. Methods: The legal database Westlaw was utilized to collect ob/gyn-related malpractice lawsuits involving trainees reported from 1986 to 2020 in the USA. Outcome: Forty-six malpractice cases involving ob/gyn trainees were identified, including 34 cases related to obstetrics and 12 to gynecology. There were 11 cases alleging lack of informed consent, including 7 cases alleging lack of consent for trainee involvement. Of the 34 obstetrics cases, 27 related to procedural complications, 17 to treatment, 13 to diagnosis, and 4 to informed consent. Of these, 17 were decided in favor of the physician, 6 resulted in findings of negligence, 9 had unknown outcomes, and 3 ended in settlement. For the 6 cases ending in a finding of negligence, the mean award was $2,174,472 compared to $685,000 for those that were settled. Of the 12 gynecology cases, 8 related to procedural complications, 7 to informed consent, 3 to diagnosis, and 2 to treatment. Of these, 6 were decided in favor of the physician, 3 resulted in findings of negligence, and 3 had unknown outcomes. For the cases ending in a finding of negligence, the mean award was $465,000. Conclusions and Outlook: This review of malpractice cases highlights types of situations in which trainees are sued and reveals the importance of designing curriculum around faculty training and supervision regarding trainee involvement in patient care.

Introduction: Medical documentation issues play a role in 10-20% of medical malpractice lawsuits. Inaccurate, incomplete, or generic records undermine a physician’s defense and make a plaintiff’s lawyer more likely to take on a case. Despite the frequency of documentation errors in malpractice suits, physicians receive very little education or feedback on their documentation. Our objective in this case series was to evaluate malpractice cases related to documentation to help improve physicians’ documentation and minimize their liability risks. Methods: We used Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database to identify malpractice cases related to documentation. Common issues related to documentation and themes in the cases were identified and highlighted. Results: We classified cases into the following categories: incomplete documentation; inaccurate text; transcription errors; judgmental language; and alteration of documentation. By evaluating real cases, physicians can better understand common errors of other practitioners and avoid these in their own practice. Conclusion: Emergency physicians can reduce their liability risks by relying less on forms and templates and making a habit of documenting discussions with the patients, recording others’ involvement in patient care (chaperones, consultants, trainees, etc.), addressing others’ notes (triage staff, nurses, residents, etc.), paying attention to accuracy of transcribed or dictated information, avoiding judgmental language, and refraining from altering patient charts.

Introduction: Anaphylaxis continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Healthcare providers struggle to promptly recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis patients. The goal of this study was to characterize anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits.Methods: We collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged medical malpractice involving anaphylaxis from May 2011 through May 2015 from an online legal database (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form.Results: We identified 30 anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits. In 80% of cases, the trigger was iatrogenic (40% intravenous [IV] contrast, 33% medications, 7% latex). Sixteen (53%) cases resulted in death, 7 (23%) in permanent cardiac and/or neurologic damage, and 7 (23%) in less severe outcomes. Fourteen (47%) of the lawsuits were related to exposure to a known trigger. Delayed recognition or treatment was cited in 12 (40%) cases and inappropriate IV epinephrine dosing was reported in 5 (17%) cases. Defendants were most commonly physicians (n=15, 50%) and nurses (n=5, 17%). The most common physician specialties named were radiology and primary care (n=3, 10% each), followed by emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and cardiology (n=2, 7% each). Among the 30 cases, 14 (47%) favored the defendant, 8 (37%) resulted in findings of negligence, 3 (10%) cases settled, and 5 (17%) had an unknown legal outcome.Conclusion: Additional anaphylaxis education, provision of epinephrine autoinjectors or other alternatives to reduce dosing errors, and stronger safeguards to prevent administration of known allergens would all likely reduce anaphylaxis-related patient morbidity and mortality and providers’ legal vulnerability to anaphylaxis-related lawsuits.