Malpractice Litigation Involving Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation

Review of nine malpractice cases with allegations of causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation: No evidence for causation

Research shows no convincing evidence to support a causal link between cervical spine manipulation (CSM) and cervical artery dissection (CAD). Researchers have proposed that a belief in a causal link may have significant negative consequences such as numerous episodes of litigation. The objective of this study was to review 10 malpractice cases for evidence of unnecessary litigation due to a belief in a causal link between CSM and CAD. A Google Scholar Case Law search from 1989 to 2024 was conducted to identify the 10 most recent English-language reports of malpractice cases involving an allegation that CSM caused CAD. Although our objective was to review 10 cases, only 9 cases were found. In all cases, causation of CAD by CSM was not supported by the evidence. In 4 out 9 cases reviewed, causation of stroke by CSM was supported by the evidence. In all 9 cases reviewed, failure to diagnose an existing CAD was more likely than not but was not alleged. We conclude that belief in a causal link between CSM and CAD does have negative consequences such as unnecessary litigation. In all 9 cases reviewed, allegations of failure to diagnose an existing CAD would have been more likely to result in a settlement without need for a trial.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) are among the most common cervical spine operations, with over 137,000 surgeries performed annually. Understanding reasons underlying malpractice pertaining to ACDF may inform physicians of practices to improve delivery of patient care and mitigate malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the causes and outcomes for lawsuits pertaining to ACDF.

Methods

The Westlaw Edge and Verdict Search databases were queried for malpractice claims utilizing the keywords "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" and "ACDF". Inclusion criteria was based on relevance of case grievance(s) to ACDF. Data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, monetary award, and sustained injuries.

Results

Fifty cases were included in this study after excluding 1933 cases. Of the 50 cases, 34 (68%) resulted in a defendant outcome, 8 (16%) resulted in a plaintiff outcome, and 8 (16%) resulted in settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in an average monetary payment of $9.70 million, while settlements resulted in an average payment of $2.06 million. Reasons for litigation were divided into 10 categories, most commonly improper postoperative management (20%), hardware failure (18%), intraoperative error (14%), off-label use of implants (14%), and insufficient informed consent (12%).

Conclusions

Malpractice claims due to ACDF are associated with higher frequencies of plaintiff verdicts and higher monetary costs compared to other spinal surgery procedures. There does not appear to be supporting evidence that spinal cord neuromonitoring is mandatory for ACDF procedures from a medicolegal standpoint.

A retrospective analysis of the incidence of severe adverse events among recipients of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy

This study examined the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) of patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), with the hypothesis that < 1 per 100,000 SMT sessions results in a grade ≥ 3 (severe) AE. A secondary objective was to examine independent predictors of grade ≥ 3 AEs. We identified patients with SMT-related AEs from January 2017 through August 2022 across 30 chiropractic clinics in Hong Kong. AE data were extracted from a complaint log, including solicited patient surveys, complaints, and clinician reports, and corroborated by medical records. AEs were independently graded 1-5 based on severity (1-mild, 2-moderate, 3-severe, 4-life-threatening, 5-death). Among 960,140 SMT sessions for 54,846 patients, 39 AEs were identified, two were grade 3, both of which were rib fractures occurring in women age > 60 with osteoporosis, while none were grade ≥ 4, yielding an incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs of 0.21 per 100,000 SMT sessions (95% CI 0.00, 0.56 per 100,000). There were no AEs related to stroke or cauda equina syndrome. The sample size was insufficient to identify predictors of grade ≥ 3 AEs using multiple logistic regression. In this study, severe SMT-related AEs were reassuringly very rare.

Why are spine surgeons sued, and with what outcomes?

Background

Why are spine surgeons sued, how successfully, and for how much? Typical bases for spinal medicolegal suits have included; the failure to timely diagnose and treat, surgical negligence, (i.e. especially resulting in significant neurological deficits), and the lack of informed consent. We reviewed 17 medicolegal spinal articles looking for additional reasons for suits, along with identifying other factors contributing to defense verdicts, plaintiffs' verdicts, or settlements.

Methods

After confirming the same three most likely causes of medicolegal suits, other factors leading to such suits included; the lack of patient access to surgeons postoperatively, poor postoperative management (i.e. contributing to new postoperative neurological deficits), failure to communicate between specialists/surgeons perioperatively, and failure to brace.

Results

Critical factors leading to more plaintiffs' verdicts and settlements along with higher payouts for both included new severe and/or catastrophic postoperative neurological deficits. Conversely, defense verdicts were more likely for those with less severe new and/or residual injuries. The total number of plaintiffs' verdicts ranged from 17-35.2%, settlements, from 8.3-37%, and defense verdicts from 27.7-75%.

Conclusion

The three most frequent bases for spinal medicolegal suits continue to include; failure to timely diagnose/treat, surgical negligence, and lack of informed consent. Here, we identified the following additional causes of such suits; the lack of patient access to surgeons perioperatively, poor postoperative management, lack of specialist/surgeon communication, and failure to brace. Further, more plaintiffs' verdicts or settlements and greater respective payouts were observed for those with new and/or more severe/catastrophic deficits, while more defense verdicts were typically rendered for patients with lesser new neurological injuries.

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

METHODS

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

RESULTS

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

CONCLUSION

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.