A Review of Medicolegal Malpractice Suits Involving Cervical Spine What can we Learn or Change?

Study Design: Utilizing Verdict Search (East Islip, New York), a medicolegal research service for civil and criminal court cases, 78 cervical spine surgical malpractice suits were identified (10-year period). Objective: Factors leading to cervical spine surgical litigation may represent an untapped source of risks/complications associated with these operations. Summary of Background: Data with fewer adverse events are submitted to and/or published in spine journals, as they are discoverable in a court of law. Methods: Cervical spine surgery in 68 patients included 48 anterior operations (1 to 4 level anterior diskectomy/fusions, 1-level corpectomy/fusion). Twenty patients had posterior surgery (7 fusions, 13 laminectomies with/without fusions). Two patients had other operations/procedures, whereas 8 had no surgery. Four major questions were asked; (1) What were the operations/neurologic deficits that led to the suits?, (2) Who was sued?, (3) What purported and/or alleged "malpractice" events prompted the suits?, and (4) What were the outcomes of these suits? Results: Postoperative neurologic deficits that led to suits included quadriplegia in 41 patients (21 anterior, 20 posterior operations). Other injuries/lesser postoperative deficits were observed in 15 patients, whereas 22 had pain alone. Malpractice suits involved 63 spine surgeons, whereas 15 did not. The 3 most common malpractice events prompting cervical suits, and typical for most surgery-related suits, included negligent surgery, lack of informed consent, and failure to diagnose/treat; the fourth unanticipated factor was failure to brace. Outcomes for these suits included 30 defense verdicts (10 quadriplegic patients), 22 plaintiffs' verdicts (average payout $4.0 million dollars), and 26 settlements (average $2.4 million dollars). Conclusions: Data gleaned from medicolegal suits may provide additional information regarding the morbidity associated with cervical surgery. These data may lessen patients' expectations, and limit spine surgeons' liability. In the future, consideration may be given to tort reform, or a No-Fault malpractice system.