Liability of radiologists when supervising technologists

Stability and infrequency of radiologic technologist malpractice payments: an analysis of the National Practitioner Data Bank

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe characteristics and trends of radiologic technologist (RT) malpractice payments.

METHODS

National Practitioner Data Bank data files were analyzed for details of RT malpractice payments from 1991 through 2008. Payment amounts, sources, and allegations were all identified and summarized, along with geographic and demographic data.

RESULTS

Between 1991 and 2008, a total of 155 RT malpractice payments were reported nationally, ranging from $750 to $11.5 million (median, $57,500; mean, $293,655 +/- $1,305,091), with 153 (99%) <$1 million. Adjusting for outliers and inflation, payments changed little over the 18-year interval. More than half of all cases originated in 8 states, with per capita payments most common in Louisiana and New Jersey. Alleged errors in diagnosis accounted for one third of all cases.

CONCLUSION

Malpractice payments on behalf of RTs are very infrequent (on average, <9 nationally each year) and usually relatively small (almost half <$50,000). Frequency and mean adjusted payment have remained stable over nearly two decades, likely related in part to "deep pocket" shielding by hospitals and radiologists.

Breast imaging, standard of care, and the expert

Many radiologists have the opportunity to serve as experts in determining whether a colleague's actions are within standard of care. This is an important responsibility because, in large part, the fairness and success of the judicial system determining whether medical negligence has occurred is dependent on the opinion of the medical expert. Especially in the field of breast imaging, the physician acting as an expert often has to base opinions on judgments rather than incontestable facts. To make judgments of the highest quality, the expert must possess a clear understanding of the concept of standard of care. This article focuses on the role of experts in malpractice cases dealing with mammography and the delay of diagnosis of breast cancer.