Determinants of brain tumor malpractice litigation outcome and indemnity payments: a 29-year nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE Medical malpractice litigation is a significant challenge in neurosurgery, with more than 25% of a neurosurgeon's career on average spent with an open malpractice claim. While earlier research has elucidated characteristics of litigation related to brain tumor treatment, factors impacting outcome and indemnity payment amount are incompletely understood. METHODS The authors identified all medical malpractice cases related to brain tumors from 1988 to 2017 in VerdictSearch, a database of 200,000 cases from all 50 states. The outcome for each case was dichotomized from the perspective of the defendant physician as favorable (defendant victory) or unfavorable (plaintiff victory or settlement). Indemnity payments were recorded for cases that resulted in settlement or plaintiff victory. Univariate regression was used to assess the association between case characteristics and case outcome as well as indemnity payment amount. Subsequently, significant variables were used to generate multivariate models for each outcome. Statistical significance was maintained at p 65 years) predicted higher odds of favorable outcome (OR 5.75, p = 0.047). For 60 cases resulting in indemnity payment, higher payments were associated on univariate analysis with neurosurgeon defendants (β-coefficient = 2.33, p = 0.017), whether the plaintiff underwent surgery (β-coefficient = 2.11, p = 0.012), and the plaintiff experiencing severe disability (β-coefficient = 4.30, p = 0.005). Following multivariate regression, only medical outcome was predictive of increased indemnity payments, including moderate disability (β-coefficient = 4.98, p = 0.007), severe disability (β-coefficient = 6.96, p = 0.001), and death (β-coefficient = 3.23, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS Neurosurgeons were the most common defendants for brain tumor malpractice litigation, averaging more than $3 million per claim paid. Older plaintiff age was associated with case outcome in favor of the physician. Additionally, medical outcome was predictive of both case outcome and indemnity payment amount.