Analysis of the Reasons for Medical Malpractice Litigation Due to Facet Injections

Introduction As the use of facet joint injections (FJI) increases, practitioners performing FJI may be at increased risk of legal liability. Malpractice claim analysis is performed by several specialties as it provides valuable insight into patient values and methods to mitigate the risk of malpractice litigation pertaining to a specific procedure or treatment. Malpractice analysis regarding FJI may provide clinicians with a better understanding of the reasons that lead to malpractice due to FJI, thereby allowing practitioners to improve the quality of care delivered to patients whilst mitigating the incidence of malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the reasons for malpractice litigation due to FJI by querying Westlaw and VerdictSearch, two well-established legal databases widely used in medicolegal research. Methods We queried the Westlaw Edge and VerdictSearch legal databases utilizing the terms "facet injection" and "spine". Our database queries yielded 1026 results on Westlaw Edge and 545 results on VerdictSearch. Cases were reviewed and categorized by two independent reviewers based on the grievance(s) levied by the plaintiff. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Inclusion criteria for case relevance were defined as a basis of litigation resting on malpractice claims filed between the years 2000-2022 directly pertaining to FJI. Additional data collected included the date of the case hearing, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, payment or settlement amount, and sustained injuries. Results Of all 1571 cases reviewed, 1568 cases were excluded due to a basis of litigation unrelated to FJI. Of the three cases pertaining to FJI, the first case involved an alleged procedural error on the part of the anesthesiologist, whereby the anesthesiologist misplaced the needle during FJI, resulting in quadriplegia due to a cervical spine infarction. The plaintiff also contended that the pre-procedural timeout was improperly conducted as the practitioner utilized iohexol as the injected contrast material despite the patient's well-documented allergy to iohexol. The jury deemed both the practitioner and hospital negligent, and a plaintiff verdict was issued. The second case was filed under a basis of litigation alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment on the part of an emergency medicine physician. The court acquitted the physician, and a defense verdict was issued. The third case was filed under a basis of litigation of alleged deviation from the standard of care on the part of the anesthesiologist, whereby the anesthesiologist performing the FJI did not use fluoroscopy. The court affirmed fluoroscopy is not dictated as the standard of care for FJI and issued a defendant verdict. Conclusion This study provides insight into the risk of medical malpractice suits brought on by facet joint injection. Our findings suggest that despite the high prevalence of facet joint injections performed annually, there is limited legal liability associated with the procedure. Nevertheless, there are certain reasons a malpractice claim may be filed due to facet injection, including gross procedural error resulting in patient paralysis, delay in treatment or diagnosis, and deviation from the established standard of care. As such, treatment decisions regarding facet joint injection should not be influenced by medicolegal concerns and remain predicated on patient care needs and standard of care.