CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,180Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Policy and Management

Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty

Open access
Jena, Anupam B., Seabury, Seth, Lakdawalla, Darius, Chandra, Amitabh·2011·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmsa1012370PMC PMC3204310
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the proportion of physicians who face malpractice claims in a year, the size of those claims, and the cumulative career malpractice risk according to specialty. METHODS: We analyzed malpractice data from 1991 through 2005 for all physicians who were covered by a large professional liability insurer with a nationwide client base (40,916 physicians and 233,738 physician-years of coverage). For 25 specialties, we reported the proportion of physicians who had malpractice claims in a year, the proportion of claims leading to an indemnity payment (compensation paid to a plaintiff), and the size of indemnity payments. We estimated the cumulative risk of ever being sued among physicians in high- and low-risk specialties. RESULTS: Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants). The proportion of physicians facing a claim each year ranged from 19.1% in neurosurgery, 18.9% in thoracic-cardiovascular surgery, and 15.3% in general surgery to 5.2% in family medicine, 3.1% in pediatrics, and 2.6% in psychiatry. The mean indemnity payment was $274,887, and the median was $111,749. Mean payments ranged from $117,832 for dermatology to $520,923 for pediatrics. It was estimated that by the age of 65 years, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim, as compared with 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the likelihood of malpractice suits and the size of indemnity payments across specialties. The cumulative risk of facing a malpractice claim is high in all specialties, although most claims do not lead to payments to plaintiffs. (Funded by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice and the National Institute on Aging.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa1012370

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jena, A. B., Seabury, S., Lakdawalla, D., & Chandra, A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2011-08-18
Volume
365
Issue
7
Pages
629-636
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmsa1012370
PMC
PMC3204310
OpenAlex
W2148118870
Cited by
1,180
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 42
FWCI
122.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag031544-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (7R01AG031544, RC4AG039036, P01 AG19783-02, R01 AG031544, P30AG043073, P01AG019783, P30AG024968)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
medical malpractice, malpractice claims, physician specialty, professional liability insurance, indemnity payments, neurosurgery, general practice, general surgery
MeSH terms
Malpractice, Medicine, Physicians, Risk, Specialties, Surgical, United States, Models, Statistical, Physicians, Primary Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review