Version 1
: Received: 10 June 2024 / Approved: 11 June 2024 / Online: 11 June 2024 (15:36:14 CEST)
How to cite:
Dedivitis Tiossi Wild, C. L.; de Carvalho, W. B. The Impact of Expert Medical Reports on Pediatric Medical Malpractice Judgments in Brazil. Preprints2024, 2024060723. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0723.v1
Dedivitis Tiossi Wild, C. L.; de Carvalho, W. B. The Impact of Expert Medical Reports on Pediatric Medical Malpractice Judgments in Brazil. Preprints 2024, 2024060723. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0723.v1
Dedivitis Tiossi Wild, C. L.; de Carvalho, W. B. The Impact of Expert Medical Reports on Pediatric Medical Malpractice Judgments in Brazil. Preprints2024, 2024060723. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0723.v1
APA Style
Dedivitis Tiossi Wild, C. L., & de Carvalho, W. B. (2024). The Impact of Expert Medical Reports on Pediatric Medical Malpractice Judgments in Brazil. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0723.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Dedivitis Tiossi Wild, C. L. and Werther Brunow de Carvalho. 2024 "The Impact of Expert Medical Reports on Pediatric Medical Malpractice Judgments in Brazil" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0723.v1
Abstract
The term “medical error” is quite often used to refer to any mistake committed in the provision of healthcare services which has caused harm to a patient. Objective: To analyze civil lawsuits involving medical errors in pediatrics by evaluating: 1) causal link; 2) type of medical error; 3) conviction of the court and its legal basis; 4) correlation between medical expert understanding and legal understanding. Materials and Method: Retrospective analysis of 60 pediatric forensic medical examinations carried out by a pediatric expert between April 2009 and February 2014 at the Institute of Medicine and Criminology of the State of São Paulo (IMESC). The expert’s reports were analyzed according to age, gender, type of forensic medical report (direct or indirect), conclusion of the expert’s report (causal link between the medical conduct and complaint or not), type of medical error (negligence, recklessness, malpractice), judgment in the first instance (if in accordance with the expert’s report or not), and basis of judgment as objective or subjective (type of law). Results: Most expert’s examinations (65%) were indirect (death). In 27 reports (45%), the expert’s conclusion determined that there was a causal link between medical care and the damage inflicted to a patient. Of the 27 reports with causal link, the judge was not in accordance with the expert’s report in one case, thus not considering medical error. The vast majority of sentences (55) were in accordance with the expert’s conclusion (91.6%). Subjective law was mostly used to support the judge’s ruling (61.70%), followed by objective law (23.30%). All lawsuits claimed moral damages (100%). In the statistical analysis of distribution of nominal variables (frequency), an excellent agreement (kappa= 0.86), with statistical significance, was verified between the expert’s report and the court ruling. Conclusion: Expert evidence supported 91.6% of the sentences and was considered to be highly valuable evidence. Expert evidence had a major impact on the legal proceedings and has proven statistically significant (p<0.005). Subjective law was used to assess medical error in all cases in which healthcare professionals were involved. Claims for moral damages was requested in all lawsuits, and was fully or partially granted in 100% of the cases.
Keywords
medical error; expert´s report; pediatric error; judgment in the first instnace
Subject
Medicine and Pharmacology, Other
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
