Theoretically, you would think so.
The pitfall for most foot wound/amp patients - just like trauma ortho/neuro/etc or OB fetal distress or abdominal distress ER pts - is that :
- The surgeons often have little or no relationship or trust with them pre-op.
- The patient has easily objective disability/restrictions afterwards (minor or major, temp or permanent) ... their life has changed, they're often off work, they're depressed, they're angry. They frequently lose their job and/or some job options (or never had one).
The amputation folk have plenty of time to be grouchy, to look up attorneys, to get mad at the bills coming in the mail. They very often settle on disability and/or litigation as a way to try to boost their income. They have nothing to lose. It simply takes a web search or somebody mentioning to them that they know a guy who got a BKA settlement to start the wheels moving. This is the reason for those wound care questions on malpractice. There is little or no doc-patient relationship, so many patients have no second thoughts of lawsuit. This higher litigation risk, along with typically crap insurance for ER pts, is why MDs get and demand so much for call pay.
Pleeenty of attorneys are happy to take a case with easily measurable (or severe allegation) harm. Amputations or "obstetric complication" or almost anything with kids or permanent brain damages from accidents are low hanging fruits. Lawyers know this: they can use those to coax a decent settlement with those things - or even sway a jury.
Elective patients are typically more gainfully employed (had insurance to go to office, do prior auth, etc) and could
theoretically have more damages if the outcome was severely bad and affected lost income (multiple revisions for a flat foot, amp from a bunion, etc). CRPS is claimed on 99% of them. However there are little or no
provable damages with bunions "crooked toe" or "under-corrected nose job" or "total hip made me taller on that leg" is pretty subjective and no huge/objective disability. They usually had a fair to good relationship with the surgeon/clinic pre-op, and suits for a bad scar or a jammed first MPJ or a recur ankle OA just don't have a lot of measurable damage. It is possible a clinic pushes them over the edge post-op with poor treatment or aggro billing... no doubt.
The
main reason the elective surgery suit rates are lower is necessity. Most of the elective surgery (or even clinic) people may be upset or not totally satisfied with outcomes, but they don't have any perceived
necessity to sue. They are back to work, they have money, they have savings, they're busy... they will often just complain to friends or move on and/or leave a bad review. They don't need to try for a payday, and they usually don't want the time and hassle. They simply do not typically have the
massive free time and financial troubles and lack of doc-patient trust of trauma/amp disability patients.
[ VA/IHS and some bubble situations like Kaiser where the same money pool paying the docs is also paying for the patient care are rare exceptions. Most typical litigation rules don't apply, settlements are capped severely, and the pts have a pretty limited set of docs/providers available. ...Those are low risk places to do limb salvage at. ]
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
