Premium
Malodorous consequences: What comprises negligence in anosmia litigation?
Author(s) -
Svider Peter F.,
Mauro Andrew C.,
Eloy Jean Anderson,
Setzen Michael,
Carron Michael A.,
Folbe Adam J.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international forum of allergy and rhinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.503
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 2042-6984
pISSN - 2042-6976
DOI - 10.1002/alr.21257
Subject(s) - medicine , malpractice , plaintiff , allegation , jury , rhinology , anosmia , damages , otorhinolaryngology , family medicine , surgery , law , disease , pathology , covid-19 , political science , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Background Our objectives were to evaluate factors raised in malpractice litigation in which plaintiffs alleged that physician negligence led to olfactory dysfunction. Methods We analyzed publically available federal and court records using Westlaw, a widely used computerized legal database. Pertinent jury verdicts and settlements were comprehensively examined for alleged causes of malpractice (including procedures for iatrogenic causes), defendant specialty, patient demographics, and other factors raised in legal proceedings. Results Of 25 malpractice proceedings meeting inclusion criteria, 60.0% were resolved for the defendant, 12.0% were settled, and 28.0% had jury‐awarded damages. Median payments were significant ($300,000 and $412,500 for settlements and awards, respectively). Otolaryngologists were the most frequently named defendants (68.0%), with the majority of iatrogenic cases (55.0%) related to rhinologic procedures. Associated medical events accompanying anosmia included dysgeusia, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and meningitis. Other alleged factors included requiring additional surgery (80.0%), unnecessary procedures (47.4% of iatrogenic procedural cases), untimely diagnosis leading to anosmia (44.0%), inadequate informed consent (35.0%), dysgeusia (56.0%), and psychological sequelae (24.0%). Conclusion Olfactory dysfunction can adversely affect quality of life and thus is a potential area for malpractice litigation. This is particularly true for iatrogenic causes of anosmia, especially following rhinologic procedures. Settlements and damages awarded were considerable, making an understanding of factors detailed in this analysis of paramount importance for the practicing otolaryngologist. This analysis reinforces the importance of explicitly including anosmia in a comprehensive informed consent process for any rhinologic procedure.