Litigation risks despite guideline adherence for acute spinal cord injury: time is spine

Daniel Rafter, Ranveer Vasdev, Duncan Hurrelbrink, Mark Gormley, Tabitha Chettupally, Francis X. Shen, Uzma Samadani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines do not specify timing for management of acute spinal cord injury (aSCI) due to lack of high-quality evidence supporting specific intervals for intervention. Randomized prospective trials may be unethical. Nonetheless, physicians have been sued for delays in diagnosis and intervention. METHODS: The authors reviewed both the medical literature supporting the guidelines and the legal cases reported in the Westlaw and Lexis Advance databases from 1972 to 2018 resulting in awards or settlements, to identify whether surgeons are vulnerable to litigation despite the existence of guidelines not mandating specific timing of care. RESULTS: Timing of intervention was related to claims in 59 (36%) of 163 cases involving SCI. All 22 trauma cases identified cited timing of intervention, sometimes related to delayed diagnosis, as a reason for the lawsuit. The mean award of 10 cases in which the plaintiffs’ awards were disclosed was $4,294,384. In the majority of cases, award amounts were not disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Because conduct of a prospective, randomized trial to investigate surgical timing of intervention for aSCI may not be achievable, evidence-based guidelines will be unlikely to mandate specific timing. Nonetheless, surgeons who unreasonably delay intervention for aSCI may be at risk for litigation due to treatment delay. This is increasingly likely in an environment where “complete” SCI is difficult to verify. SCI may at some point be recognized as a surgical emergency, as brain injury generally is, despite a lack of prospective randomized trials supporting this implementation, challenging the feasibility of the US trauma infrastructure to provide care for these patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalNeurosurgical focus
Issue number5
StatePublished - Nov 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Dr. Samadani reports receiving lecture fees from Abbott Laboratories, the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, Cottage Health, Google Inc., Integra Corp., Medtronic Corp., National Neurotrauma Society, the National Football League, USA Football, and the Minnesota, Texas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin Coaches Associations; receiving grant support from the Minnesota Department of Education (Traumatic Brain and Spinal Cord Injury), Veterans Administration, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, and Integra; having equity in Oculogica; and serving as an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant to the National Football League for 5 games during each of the 2015–2018 football seasons.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020


  • intervention
  • litigation
  • spinal cord injury
  • surgical decompression
  • timing


Dive into the research topics of 'Litigation risks despite guideline adherence for acute spinal cord injury: time is spine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this