Michigan: Malpractice Payment of $97,500 for Injury to a Male Patient in his 60s (2004)

In 2004, a medical malpractice insurance company made a payment on behalf of an osteopathic physician (DO) in Michigan for approximately* $97,500. Payment was made in response to a claim of medical malpractice claim involving what was described as a "minor permanent injury" to a male patient between 60 and 70 years old. The nature of the claim is broadly described as: "surgery related." The payment report submitted by a medical malpractice payer described the allegations in the claim as "Improper Technique."

* The payment amount is approximate because the National Practitioner Data Bank codes payments as a range value. The report's description of $97,500 corresponds to a malpractice payment somewhere between $95,001 and $100,000.

Claim at a Glance

Year of Payment: 2004

Location: Michigan

Allegation: Improper Technique

Act or Omission: 2001

Payment Range: Between $95,001 and $100,000

Nature of Claim: Surgery Related

Payer: Insurance Company - Primary Coverage

Type of Care: Inpatient

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.

This Provider Has 14 Malpractice Payments in the Database

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 two other types of reports on record that are worth noting. First, this provider has a total of 14 malpractice payments in the database. This is a highly concerning number of medical malpractice payments. 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 14 malpractice payments is more than 99% 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.

Provider Detail

Alerts 16

Michigan

Osteopathic Physician (DO)

Age: Between 40 and 50 Years Old in 2001 When Allegations Arose

Education Completed: Between 1980 and 1990

Malpractice Payments 14
There are other payments in the database associated with this provider:
YearStateAmountAllegation
2004Michigan$97,500Improper Technique
2008Michigan$22,500Failure-to-Instruct or Communicate with Patient or Family
2008Michigan$3,500Delay in Diagnosis
2008Michigan$165,000Failure to Treat
2008Michigan$4,450,000Agent Use or Selection Error
2012Michigan$195,000Delay in Diagnosis
2012Michigan$62,500Improper Technique
2014Michigan$125,000Improper Technique
2019Michigan$97,500Improper Performance
2020Michigan$67,500Failure to Delay a Case When Indicated
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.
Payments

Similar Claims

Here are other claims involving an allegation of Improper Technique and an outcome of what was described as a "minor permanent injury" to a patient between 60 and 70 years old.
YearStateAmountAllegation
2022Connecticut$115,000Improper Technique
2022Missouri$175,000Improper Technique
2022Illinois$195,000Improper Technique
2022Florida$62,500Improper Technique
2022Tennessee$145,000Improper Technique
2022Florida$125,000Improper Technique
2022Connecticut$195,000Improper Technique
2022Oklahoma$195,000Improper Technique
2022California$97,500Improper Technique
2022New Mexico$32,500Improper Technique