• Andrew G. Lee

Why is neuroophthalmology a special risk for general ophthalmic medical malpractice claims? Neuroophthalmology is a relatively small part of most general ophthalmic practices. Unfortunately, several features of neuroophthalmic practice create special risk for the comprehensive ophthalmologist. It has been my experience that, although claims against neuroophthalmologists are rare, neuroophthalmic-based claims against comprehensive ophthalmologists are not. First, clinical decisions about neuroophthalmic conditions may have vision-threatening or life-threatening consequences. Second, because these are often “high stakes” decisions, earlier diagnosis and treatment make a big difference in final outcome. Third, as opposed to other more common ophthalmic subspecialties, neuroophthalmic consultation may not be easily accessible, timely, or available to the comprehensive ophthalmologist. Fourth, the cost of a neuroophthalmic paid claim is often higher than the typical ophthalmology claim. About 15% of the paid claims (n = 17) of the Ophthalmology Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC) closed with a “large loss” ( $ 250,000). These 17 paid claims represented a disproportionate 59% of OMIC’s total paid indemnity (average $ 433,285). Interestingly, in the OMIC series, the number one payout was $790,000 for a “failure to diagnose brain tumor” that led to death. In addition, a second case of “failure to diagnose giant cell arteritis” (≥$250,000) was among the “large loss” cases.

This chapter presents composite but real closed cases as well as a few modified cases drawn from the author’s medicolegal consultation practice to highlight specific areas of concern, risk management and the potential for systems based failures in neuroophthalmic cases. I want to emphasize that the recommendations in this chapter are meant to be guidelines for care and not necessarily the “standard of care.”


Giant Cell Arteritis Optic Atrophy Temporal Arteritis Central Retinal Artery Occlusion Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company. litigation/16.cfm.
  2. 2.
    Kraushar MF, Robb JH. Ophthalmic malpractice lawsuits with large monetary awards. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:333-337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kraushar MF, Turner MF. Medical malpractice litigation in ophthalmology: the New Jersey experience. Ophthalmic Surg 1986;17:671-674.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kraushar MF. Recognizing and managing the litigious patient. Surv Ophthalmol 1992;37: 54-56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bettman JW. A review of 412 claims in ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1980;20:131-142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bettman JW. Office personnel and medicolegal claims. Surv Ophthalmol 1982;27:64-66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bettman JW. Seven hundred medicolegal cases in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1990;97: 1379-1384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bettman JW. Special problems in ophthalmic subspecialties. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1246-1252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donin JF. Special risk areas in ophthalmology. Neuro-ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1980;20:93-107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donin JF. The neuro-ophthalmology trap: failure to diagnose. Ophthalmology 1979;86: 1240-1245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hepler RS. Ophthalmology personnel in risk management. What office personnel need to know to keep you out of trouble. Ophthalmology 1990;97:1385-1389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanckton AV. How to avoid malpractice claims. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:339-340.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew G. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.OphthalmologyUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowaUSA

Personalised recommendations