New York: Malpractice Payment of $995,000 for Injury to a Male Patient in his 60s (2024)

In 2024, a medical malpractice insurance company made a payment on behalf of a physician (MD) in New York for approximately* $995,000. Payment was made in response to a claim of medical malpractice claim involving what was described as a "major temporary injury" to a male patient between 60 and 70 years old. The nature of the claim is broadly described as: "diagnosis related." The payment report submitted by a medical malpractice payer described the allegations in the claim as "Delay in Diagnosis" and "Delay in Treatment."

* The payment amount is approximate because the National Practitioner Data Bank codes payments as a range value. The report's description of $995,000 corresponds to a malpractice payment somewhere between $990,001 and $1,000,000.

Claim at a Glance

Year of Payment: 2024

Location: New York

First Allegation: Delay in Diagnosis

Second Allegation: Delay in Treatment

Act or Omission: 2020

Second Act or Omission: 2020

Payment Range: Between $990,001 and $1,000,000

Nature of Claim: Diagnosis Related

Payer: Insurance Company - Primary Coverage

Type of Care: Outpatient

Reporter: A Medical Malpractice Payer

Claim Insights

With respect to any medical malpractice payment, there are three major components of any claim. First, there is the act or omission that gave rise to an injury and whether the provider departed from an accepted standard of practice. Second, there is the nature of the injury itself, which includes several factors like its severity, duration, the impact on the patient’s life, the age and general health of the patient, along with many other elements. Third, there needs to be a causal connection between the negligent act or omission by the provider and the injury itself. Even with a showing of negligence, a medical provider is not legally responsible for an outcome that was not caused by the negligence.

With this in mind, the Data Bank does have some information that can give context to the medical malpractice payments, including the patient’s age, gender, whether it was inpatient or outpatient care, the type of malpractice or medical mistake that was alleged, and the ultimate outcome to the patient.

The information has significant limitations, however, that everyone should keep in mind. For one thing, the information is usually self-reported by the healthcare provider and his or her representatives. When reviewing this information, you should consider whether the patient would have described his or her injury as “minor” or “temporary” or “emotional only.” Further, there are important aspects of any claim valuation that simply cannot work in a database. Flagrant negligence might be coded the same way as what could be described as a smaller error, and one would have no way of knowing from these data. But even with these limitations and even where some required information is missing from any particular report, each of the payment reports in the database have enough to provide some insightful information that can help evaluate medical malpractice claims going forward.

Provider History Includes Two Licensure Reports

A medical provider's malpractice history can be extremely insightful. A long history of malpractice claims and discipline can certainly affect whether a matter is resolved and for how much. One of the most important goals of the National Practitioner Data Bank is to track providers' disciplinary and malpractice payment history throughout interstate moves or new employment situations.

In addition to this particular malpractice payment, this provider has three other types of reports on record that are worth noting. First, this provider has a total of three malpractice payments in the database. To put this number in perspective, throughout over 200,000 payment records, approximately 55% of them are associated with providers with multiple payments. This provider's total of three malpractice payments is more than 82% of all providers in the database, which is limited to providers with malpractice payment history.

Second, the database reflects that this particular provider had two licensure report(s) on record. These are more unusual among the providers for whom malpractice payments are recorded in the database - only about 15% of the providers with malpractice payments also have at least one licensure report as well.

Third, this provider has five exclusion reports on record. The Office of the Inspector General keeps a database on providers who are excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The provider in this matter has such a report associated with them in the database.

Provider Detail

Alerts 10

New York

Physician (MD)

Age: Between 70 and 80 Years Old in 2020 When Allegations Arose

Education Completed: Between 1970 and 1980

Malpractice Payments 3
There are other payments in the database associated with this provider:
YearStateAmountAllegation
2018New York$245,000Delay in Diagnosis
2024New York$995,000Delay in Diagnosis
Licensure Reports 2
Adverse actions by the state licensing board are reported to the NPDB. Some of these actions are public, but some are not. All adverse actions must be reported in this database, whether or not they are public.
Exclusion Reports 5
This report means a temporary or permanent barring from participation in a federal or state health-related program, e.g. Medicare and Medicaid, such that those entities will not reimburse the provider for services.
Payments

Similar Claims

Here are other claims involving an allegation of Delay in Diagnosis and an outcome of what was described as a "major temporary injury" to a patient between 60 and 70 years old.
YearStateAmountAllegation
2024Pennsylvania$395,000Delay in Diagnosis
2024New York$995,000Delay in Diagnosis
2024Texas$92,500Delay in Diagnosis
2024Florida$245,000Delay in Diagnosis
2024Pennsylvania$145,000Delay in Diagnosis
2024Georgia$47,500Delay in Diagnosis
2023Wyoming$145,000Delay in Diagnosis
2023Indiana$245,000Delay in Diagnosis
2023Indiana$57,500Delay in Diagnosis
2023West Virginia$395,000Delay in Diagnosis