@article{ref1,
title="Dizziness, malpractice, and the otolaryngologist",
journal="American journal of otolaryngology",
year="2017",
author="Littlefield, Philip D. and Ruhl, Douglas S. and Song, Sungjin A. and Tolisano, Anthony M.",
volume="38",
number="4",
pages="401-404",
abstract="PURPOSE: To assess malpractice claims related to the management of dizziness in otolaryngology in order to improve care and minimize the risk of litigation. <br><br>MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the LexisNexis &quot;Jury Verdicts and Settlements&quot; database. All lawsuits and out of court adjudications related to the management of dizziness by otolaryngologists were collected. Data including patient demographics, plaintiff allegation, procedure performed, and indemnities were analyzed. <br><br>RESULTS: Of 21 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 17 were decided by a trial jury and four were resolved out of court. Jury verdicts favored the plaintiff 53% of the time and a payout was made in 57% of cases overall. Average payments were higher for jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiff ($1.8 million) as compared to out of court settlements ($545,000). Two-thirds of cases involved surgery, most commonly stapes surgery. Legal allegations, including physical injury, negligence, and lack of informed consent failed to predict the legal outcome. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate examination, testing, and referrals within a timely manner are crucial in the management of dizzy patients to avoid misdiagnoses. It is imperative that patients undergoing ear surgery are appropriately counseled that dizziness is a potential complication. The analysis of malpractice literature is complementary to clinical studies, with the potential to educate practitioners, improve patient care, and mitigate risk.<br><br>Published by Elsevier Inc.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0196-0709",
doi="10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.03.009",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.03.009"
}