This updated overview explains why malpractice lawsuits persist, how courts determine negligence (including the res ipsa loquitur doctrine), common examples such as retained surgical items and prescribing errors, and the contested evidence on deaths, costs and the effects of damage caps. It advises patients to seek records and counsel and clinicians to focus on safety and communication.
Why malpractice lawsuits still matter
Medical malpractice suits remain a focal point in public debate because they touch on patient safety, accountability and health-care costs. Lawsuits can push hospitals and clinicians to fix dangerous practices, remove chronically negligent providers from practice, and compensate harmed patients. At the same time, providers and some policymakers argue that litigation and high insurance premiums can drive clinicians from practice and raise costs for everyone.
How malpractice is proved
At the heart of every malpractice claim is the "standard of care": whether a clinician acted as a reasonably competent peer would under similar circumstances. Lawyers typically rely on expert testimony to define that standard and show how it was breached.
When negligence is obvious from common experience, courts sometimes apply a doctrine called res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"). Classic examples include leaving a surgical sponge inside a patient or operating on the wrong limb - errors most jurors can assess without complex expert debate.
Common scenarios: retained items and prescribing errors
Some of the clearest malpractice cases involve retained surgical items and clear surgical mistakes. Another recurring problem is medication-related harm. Prescribing decisions - for example, repeated dosing of addictive pain medications - have been central in litigation and public-policy responses, especially after the opioid crisis highlighted how prescribing patterns can produce population-level harm.
Costs, outcomes and the evidence
Estimating the true burden of preventable harm is complex. A widely cited 2016 analysis in BMJ estimated that medical errors may contribute to roughly 250,000 deaths in the United States each year, making them among the leading causes of death. That finding generated debate and follow-up research about methods and scope.
Claims about how many malpractice suits are "unfounded" vary and depend on definitions and data sources; some older summaries suggest a substantial share of filed claims do not result in payment, but precise percentages are inconsistent across reports .
Economic estimates also vary. Older figures have been cited for medication-related extra costs (for example, $887 million), but national estimates of avoidable costs from adverse events span a wide range and depend on what categories are included 1.
The policy debate: caps and consequences
Many U.S. states limit non-economic damages in malpractice suits; others do not. Proponents of caps say they control costs and stabilize insurance markets. Opponents argue caps can deny fair compensation and blunt deterrence against poor care. Empirical research shows malpractice risk and claim frequency vary greatly by specialty and region, and the effects of legal limits on care delivery remain contested.
What patients and clinicians should take away
Malpractice litigation is imperfect but remains one tool - alongside regulation, accreditation, and quality improvement - for identifying and correcting patient-safety failures. Patients who suspect harm should seek medical records review and legal advice. Clinicians should prioritize proven safety practices, clear documentation and open communication to reduce risk and improve care.
- Verify contemporary estimates for the percentage of malpractice lawsuits that are "unfounded" or that do not result in payment and clarify definitions used in those reports.
- Confirm the source and context for the $887 million figure previously cited for preventable medication-related extra treatment costs, and identify more recent national cost estimates for medication-related harm.