Managing Your Practice

<court>Undisclosed County (Mass) District Court</court>

A woman began prenatal care at a clinic and requested a test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) due to a history of swollen glands and prior sexually transmitted diseases. Because she was not told otherwise, she believed she had tested negative for the disease.

A short while later, the woman began treatment at another prenatal care center. During her initial evaluation at the clinic, the woman was examined for her swollen glands. She told the health-care professional that she had tested negative for HIV. However, no HIV test results were in her records. Despite this finding, no HIV test was conducted. She delivered a seemingly healthy baby in June 1995 and was allowed to freely breastfeed the infant.

In late 1995, both mother and child were diagnosed with HIV. The infant was treated with antiretroviral medications, but was hospitalized several times for complications stemming from the medication. The infant’s viral load has varied over his lifetime.

In suing, the mother claimed that the second health-care facility should have followed up care of her swollen glands with an HIV test. If a timely diagnosis had been made, the plaintiff argued, she would not have breastfed her child.

• The case settled for $3 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Undisclosed County (Mass) District Court</court>

A woman began prenatal care at a clinic and requested a test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) due to a history of swollen glands and prior sexually transmitted diseases. Because she was not told otherwise, she believed she had tested negative for the disease.

A short while later, the woman began treatment at another prenatal care center. During her initial evaluation at the clinic, the woman was examined for her swollen glands. She told the health-care professional that she had tested negative for HIV. However, no HIV test results were in her records. Despite this finding, no HIV test was conducted. She delivered a seemingly healthy baby in June 1995 and was allowed to freely breastfeed the infant.

In late 1995, both mother and child were diagnosed with HIV. The infant was treated with antiretroviral medications, but was hospitalized several times for complications stemming from the medication. The infant’s viral load has varied over his lifetime.

In suing, the mother claimed that the second health-care facility should have followed up care of her swollen glands with an HIV test. If a timely diagnosis had been made, the plaintiff argued, she would not have breastfed her child.

• The case settled for $3 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Undisclosed County (Mass) District Court</court>

A woman began prenatal care at a clinic and requested a test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) due to a history of swollen glands and prior sexually transmitted diseases. Because she was not told otherwise, she believed she had tested negative for the disease.

A short while later, the woman began treatment at another prenatal care center. During her initial evaluation at the clinic, the woman was examined for her swollen glands. She told the health-care professional that she had tested negative for HIV. However, no HIV test results were in her records. Despite this finding, no HIV test was conducted. She delivered a seemingly healthy baby in June 1995 and was allowed to freely breastfeed the infant.

In late 1995, both mother and child were diagnosed with HIV. The infant was treated with antiretroviral medications, but was hospitalized several times for complications stemming from the medication. The infant’s viral load has varied over his lifetime.

In suing, the mother claimed that the second health-care facility should have followed up care of her swollen glands with an HIV test. If a timely diagnosis had been made, the plaintiff argued, she would not have breastfed her child.

• The case settled for $3 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

There’s good news and bad news for OBG coders in 2003. The bad news is that the wealth of new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes means practices must make some serious changes to their office procedures encounter form. The good news is that these long-awaited changes should make it easier for physicians to communicate to insurers the type and difficulty of many routine procedures.

In addition to the OBG-relevant changes highlighted in this article, a wide range of other code and editorial updates have been made. For instance, CPT has deleted the optional 5-digit modifier codes that could have been used instead of the 2 digit modifier. (For example, CPT defined that the modifier to signify a separate and significant E/M service could be reported as either modifier -25 or by using the code 09925. With CPT 2003, only the modifier would be reported.) This change was necessary because the uniform electronic claim set up as a result of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations can only accommodate 2-character modifiers. Coders should therefore review CPT 2003 in full to ensure that all relevant changes are captured.

A note about formatting: Codes marked in red are new in CPT 2003, while blue codes have been revised since the last edition. When a code has 1 or more indented codes following it, the indented text replaces everything following the semicolon in the initial code.

Updated pap smear codes

Pap smear codes have been revised to more clearly represent current screening techniques. Codes 88144 and 88145—which described the ThinPrep (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Mass) manual screening and computer-assisted rescreening—have been deleted, but 2 new codes have been added:

• 88174 Cytopathology, cervical or vaginal (any reporting system), collected in preservative fluid, automated thin layer preparation; screening by automated system, under physician supervision
  
• 88175 with screening by automated system and manual rescreening, under physician supervision
  

For manual screening, coders should refer to codes 88142 and 88143.

Counting leukocytes, testing semen

• 89055 leukocyte count, fecal
  

This new code, added to describe laboratory testing for fecal leukocytes, replaces the Health Care Financing Administrators Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II G code G0026 (fecal leukocyte examination).

• 89300 Semen analysis; presence and/or motility of sperm including Huhner test (post coital);
  
• 89310 Motility and count, not including Huhner test.
  

While 89300 has not changed, 89310 was revised to specifically exclude Huhner testing. It will replace the HCPCS Level II G code G0027 (semen analysis presence and/or motility of sperm excluding Huhner test).

The biggest change: diagnostic ultrasound codes

Possibly the most significant change in CPT coding comes in the area of obstetric ultrasound. These codes have been revamped to allow maternal-fetal specialists to report accurately the ultrasound procedures they perform. A new guideline note that precedes this section gives a clear definition of what the codes in that section include. For instance, the guidelines state regarding 2 of the codes:

“Codes 76801 and 76802 include determination of the number of gestational sacs and fetuses, gestational sac/fetal measurements appropriate for gestation (

Coders should spend time reviewing this section to ensure correct billing. Please also note that the codes 76802, 76810 and 76812 are designated by CPT as “add-on” codes. This means that they do not require a modifier to indicate a multiple procedure (i.e., modifier-51):

• 76801 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, first trimester (
• 76802 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76802 in conjunction with 76801.)

• 76805 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, after first trimester (14 weeks 0 days), transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76810 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76810 in conjunction with 76805.)

• 76811 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation plus detailed fetal anatomic examination, transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76812 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76812 in conjunction with 76811.)

 

• 76815 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, limited (e.g., fetal heart beat, placental location, fetal position and/or qualitative amniotic fluid volume), 1 or more fetuses
  

(Use 76815 only once per exam, not per element.)

• 76816 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, follow-up (e.g., reevaluation of fetal size by measuring standard growth parameters and amniotic fluid volume, reevaluation of organ system[s] suspected or confirmed to be abnormal on a previous scan), transabdominal approach, per fetus
  

(Report 76816 with modifier -59 [distinct procedure] for each additional fetus examined in a multiple pregnancy.)

• 76817 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, transvaginal
  

(If transvaginal examination is done in addition to transabdominal obstetrical ultrasound exam, use 76817 as well as the appropriate transabdominal exam code. For nonobstetrical transvaginal ultrasound, use code 76830 [ultrasound, transvaginal].)

Multiple births. There has also been a change in CPT instructions for coding multiple fetuses when performing a fetal biophysical profile (BPP). In the past, CPT instructed coders to use modifier -51 (multiple procedures) with each BPP code reported at that session after the first fetus (e.g., 76818, 76818-51 for twins). Now CPT indicates that a BPP done on additional fetuses should be reported separately by adding the modifier -59 (distinct procedure) to code 76818 (fetal biophysical profile; with non-stress testing) or 76819 (fetal biophysical profile without non-stress testing).

Transvaginal examination. CPT now explicitly states that if a transvaginal examination is done in addition to a transabdominal gynecologic ultrasound exam, coders should use code 76830 in addition to the appropriate transabdominal exam code (76856-76857).

Bone density studies

CPT now differentiates between a study done on the axial skeleton and one done on the peripheral skeleton, thanks to the revision of 1 code and the addition of a second:

• 76070 Computed tomography, bone mineral density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (e.g., hips, pelvis, spine)
  
• 76071 appendicular skeleton (peripheral) (e.g., radius, wrist, heel)
  

Vaginal hysterectomy

The codes listed below were revised or added to account for the additional work involved in removing a large uterus vaginally. Report these new codes when the operative report includes a description of how the uterus was removed—by bisection, morcellation, or myomectomy and coring—and confirms the weight of the uterus. As with an abdominal hysterectomy, fibroid removal prior to uterus removal is considered an integral part of the procedure, and therefore is not reported separately. Note that if the weight of the uterus is not known at the time the procedure is coded, the default would be to code for the uterus that weighs 250 g or less.

• 58550 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58552 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58553 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58554 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58260 Vaginal hysterectomy for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58262 with removal of tube(s) and ovary(s)
  
• 58263 with removal of tube(s), and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58267 with colpo-urethrocystopexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58270 with repair of enterocele
  
• 58290 Vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58291 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58292 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58293 with colpo-urethrocysto-pexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58294 with repair of enterocele
  

Myomectomy

CPT changed the uterine-fibroid removal codes to account for the more involved surgical work required for larger or multiple fibroids:

• 58140 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myoma(s); abdominal approach
  
• 58145 vaginal approach
  
• 58146 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams, abdominal approach
  

(Do not report 58146 in addition to 58140-58145 or 58150-58240 [abdominal hysterectomy codes].)

• 58545 Laparoscopy, surgical, myomectomy, excision; 1 to 4 intramural myomas with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas
  
• 58546 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams
  

Coders should note that code 58551 (laparoscopy, surgical; with removal of leiomyomata [single or multiple]) has been deleted. In its place coders would report either 58545 or 58546. CPT has also clarified that the “abdominal approach” myomectomy codes should not be reported in addition to the abdominal hysterectomy codes (58150-58240).

Colposcopy procedures

CPT 2003 contains new and revised codes for colposcopy of the vulva, cervix, and vagina:

• 56820 Colposcopy of the vulva;
  
• 56821 with biopsy(s)
  
• 57420 Colposcopy of the entire vagina, with cervix if present;
  
• 57421 with biopsy(s)
  

 

(For cervicography, see Category III code 0003T.)

• 57452 Colposcopy of the cervix including upper/adjacent vagina;
  
• 57454 with biopsy(s) of the cervix and endocervical curettage
  
• 57455 with biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57456 with endocervical curettage
  
• 57460 with loop electrode biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57461 with loop electrode conization of the cervix
  

Coders should note the following guidelines:

• If colposcopy is performed on both the vagina and vulva, both procedures may be reported, with modifier -51 added to the code of lesser relative value.
  
• A superficial cervical examination is considered part of a complete vaginal examination (codes 57420 and 57421), if performed.
  
• If the main purpose of the examination is to evaluate the cervix, not the vagina, only the cervical colposcopy codes (54452-57461) would be reported.
  
• Colposcopy of the cervix codes (54452-57461) include an examination of the entire cervix as well as the upper/adjacent portion of the vagina.
  
• Code 57460 has been revised and code 57461 added to clarify the 2 different cervical loop electrode excision procedures that might be done in conjunction with colposcopy. Code 57460 includes removal of the exocervix and a portion of the transformation zone, if necessary. Code 57461 represents a conization procedure that takes all of the exocervix, the transformation zone, and some or all of the endocervix.
  
• An endocervical curettage is included as part of a conization; therefore code 57456 would not be reported in addition to code 57461.
  

Bladder procedures, incontinence testing

Three new codes were developed to replace HCPCS code G0002 (office procedure, insertion of temporary indwelling catheter, Foley type [separate procedure]). These would be reported only when the catheter insertion is an independent procedure, not part of another procedure.

Codes 53670 and 53675 (both catheterization procedures listed under the heading “urethra”) have been deleted. In their place are new codes that are more appropriate.

• 51701 Insertion of non-indwelling bladder catheter (e.g., straight catheterization for residual urine)
  
• 51702 Insertion of temporary indwelling bladder catheter; simple (e.g., Foley)
  
• 51703 complicated (e.g., altered anatomy, fractured catheter/balloon)
  

Urodynamics. Code 51798 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging) replaces code 78730, which had been inaccurately placed in CPT’s nuclear medicine section, as well as the HCPCS Level II G code G0050 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging). The new code represents a more accurate description of this noninvasive procedure, which uses a handheld Doppler ultrasonic device. This code represents only the technical component of the procedure, and is not associated with physician work that involves interpretation because the device gives a numeric result.

Abdominal procedures

• 49419 Insertion of intraperitoneal cannula or catheter, with subcutaneous reservoir, permanent (i.e., totally implantable)
  

This would be reported by gynecologic oncologists who want to provide intraperitoneal chemotherapy in women with ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. The procedure requires an incision and the creation of a pocket for the reservoir.

For the removal of these devices, use code 49422.

Blood collection

• 36415 Collection of venous blood by venipuncture
  
• 36416 Collection of capillary blood specimen (e.g., finger, heel, ear stick)
  

Code 36415 was revised and code 36416 was added to better assign blood collection methods, and so that HCPCS Temporary G code G0001—routine venipuncture for collection of specimen(s)—could be deleted.

Excising skin lesions

Coders now choose which skin-lesion code to report based on the total amount of tissue removed at the site during the operative session, not just lesion size. These codes were revised so it’s clear they describe a full-thickness removal of the lesion, including the margin, along with simple closure (if performed).

• 11420 Excision, benign lesion including margins, except skin tag (unless listed elsewhere), scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11421 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11422 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11423 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11424 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11426 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  
• 11620 Excision, malignant lesion including margins, scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11621 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11622 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11623 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11624 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11626 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  

Coding for new technology

Category III codes represent emerging technology, and several that may be of use to Ob/Gyns have been added. Note that payers may not yet reimburse for these procedures. These procedure codes are listed in the CPT book just prior to Appendix A.

When a Category III code accurately describes the procedure or service performed, use that code rather than an unlisted code. CPT adds Category III codes to its database in January and July. To check on any Category III code updates, go to www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/article/3885-4897.html:

 

• 0028T Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) body composition study, 1 or more sites.
  

This code represents the assessment of body fat composition—a procedure popular with athletes, but one unlikely to be covered by insurers in most cases. Its medical indications are generally children with growth disorders; adults with growth hormone deficiency; and patients with eating disorders, with rapid intervention or unintentional weight loss, or on long-term total parenteral nutrition.

• 0029T Treatment(s) for incontinence, pulsed magnetic neuromodula-tion, per day
  

This code would be used to report treatment with the NeoControl system (Neotonus, Inc., Marietta, Ga), in which the patient sits in a chair designed to induce contractions in the pelvic floor and urinary sphincter muscles via a pulsed magnetic field.

• 0030T Antiprothrombin (phospholipid cofactor) antibody, each Ig class
  

Code 0030T represents an antibody test to assess patients who may be at risk for, among other things, fetal loss.

• 0031T Speculoscopy;
  
• 0032T with directed sampling
  

These were added to report procedures, such as PapSure (Watson Diagnostics, Corona, Calif), in which light is used to examine the cervix for abnormal lesions and aid in specimen collection.

Ms. Witt reports no financial relationship with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article.

There’s good news and bad news for OBG coders in 2003. The bad news is that the wealth of new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes means practices must make some serious changes to their office procedures encounter form. The good news is that these long-awaited changes should make it easier for physicians to communicate to insurers the type and difficulty of many routine procedures.

In addition to the OBG-relevant changes highlighted in this article, a wide range of other code and editorial updates have been made. For instance, CPT has deleted the optional 5-digit modifier codes that could have been used instead of the 2 digit modifier. (For example, CPT defined that the modifier to signify a separate and significant E/M service could be reported as either modifier -25 or by using the code 09925. With CPT 2003, only the modifier would be reported.) This change was necessary because the uniform electronic claim set up as a result of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations can only accommodate 2-character modifiers. Coders should therefore review CPT 2003 in full to ensure that all relevant changes are captured.

A note about formatting: Codes marked in red are new in CPT 2003, while blue codes have been revised since the last edition. When a code has 1 or more indented codes following it, the indented text replaces everything following the semicolon in the initial code.

Updated pap smear codes

Pap smear codes have been revised to more clearly represent current screening techniques. Codes 88144 and 88145—which described the ThinPrep (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Mass) manual screening and computer-assisted rescreening—have been deleted, but 2 new codes have been added:

• 88174 Cytopathology, cervical or vaginal (any reporting system), collected in preservative fluid, automated thin layer preparation; screening by automated system, under physician supervision
  
• 88175 with screening by automated system and manual rescreening, under physician supervision
  

For manual screening, coders should refer to codes 88142 and 88143.

Counting leukocytes, testing semen

• 89055 leukocyte count, fecal
  

This new code, added to describe laboratory testing for fecal leukocytes, replaces the Health Care Financing Administrators Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II G code G0026 (fecal leukocyte examination).

• 89300 Semen analysis; presence and/or motility of sperm including Huhner test (post coital);
  
• 89310 Motility and count, not including Huhner test.
  

While 89300 has not changed, 89310 was revised to specifically exclude Huhner testing. It will replace the HCPCS Level II G code G0027 (semen analysis presence and/or motility of sperm excluding Huhner test).

The biggest change: diagnostic ultrasound codes

Possibly the most significant change in CPT coding comes in the area of obstetric ultrasound. These codes have been revamped to allow maternal-fetal specialists to report accurately the ultrasound procedures they perform. A new guideline note that precedes this section gives a clear definition of what the codes in that section include. For instance, the guidelines state regarding 2 of the codes:

“Codes 76801 and 76802 include determination of the number of gestational sacs and fetuses, gestational sac/fetal measurements appropriate for gestation (

Coders should spend time reviewing this section to ensure correct billing. Please also note that the codes 76802, 76810 and 76812 are designated by CPT as “add-on” codes. This means that they do not require a modifier to indicate a multiple procedure (i.e., modifier-51):

• 76801 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, first trimester (
• 76802 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76802 in conjunction with 76801.)

• 76805 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, after first trimester (14 weeks 0 days), transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76810 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76810 in conjunction with 76805.)

• 76811 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation plus detailed fetal anatomic examination, transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76812 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76812 in conjunction with 76811.)

 

• 76815 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, limited (e.g., fetal heart beat, placental location, fetal position and/or qualitative amniotic fluid volume), 1 or more fetuses
  

(Use 76815 only once per exam, not per element.)

• 76816 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, follow-up (e.g., reevaluation of fetal size by measuring standard growth parameters and amniotic fluid volume, reevaluation of organ system[s] suspected or confirmed to be abnormal on a previous scan), transabdominal approach, per fetus
  

(Report 76816 with modifier -59 [distinct procedure] for each additional fetus examined in a multiple pregnancy.)

• 76817 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, transvaginal
  

(If transvaginal examination is done in addition to transabdominal obstetrical ultrasound exam, use 76817 as well as the appropriate transabdominal exam code. For nonobstetrical transvaginal ultrasound, use code 76830 [ultrasound, transvaginal].)

Multiple births. There has also been a change in CPT instructions for coding multiple fetuses when performing a fetal biophysical profile (BPP). In the past, CPT instructed coders to use modifier -51 (multiple procedures) with each BPP code reported at that session after the first fetus (e.g., 76818, 76818-51 for twins). Now CPT indicates that a BPP done on additional fetuses should be reported separately by adding the modifier -59 (distinct procedure) to code 76818 (fetal biophysical profile; with non-stress testing) or 76819 (fetal biophysical profile without non-stress testing).

Transvaginal examination. CPT now explicitly states that if a transvaginal examination is done in addition to a transabdominal gynecologic ultrasound exam, coders should use code 76830 in addition to the appropriate transabdominal exam code (76856-76857).

Bone density studies

CPT now differentiates between a study done on the axial skeleton and one done on the peripheral skeleton, thanks to the revision of 1 code and the addition of a second:

• 76070 Computed tomography, bone mineral density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (e.g., hips, pelvis, spine)
  
• 76071 appendicular skeleton (peripheral) (e.g., radius, wrist, heel)
  

Vaginal hysterectomy

The codes listed below were revised or added to account for the additional work involved in removing a large uterus vaginally. Report these new codes when the operative report includes a description of how the uterus was removed—by bisection, morcellation, or myomectomy and coring—and confirms the weight of the uterus. As with an abdominal hysterectomy, fibroid removal prior to uterus removal is considered an integral part of the procedure, and therefore is not reported separately. Note that if the weight of the uterus is not known at the time the procedure is coded, the default would be to code for the uterus that weighs 250 g or less.

• 58550 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58552 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58553 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58554 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58260 Vaginal hysterectomy for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58262 with removal of tube(s) and ovary(s)
  
• 58263 with removal of tube(s), and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58267 with colpo-urethrocystopexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58270 with repair of enterocele
  
• 58290 Vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58291 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58292 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58293 with colpo-urethrocysto-pexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58294 with repair of enterocele
  

Myomectomy

CPT changed the uterine-fibroid removal codes to account for the more involved surgical work required for larger or multiple fibroids:

• 58140 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myoma(s); abdominal approach
  
• 58145 vaginal approach
  
• 58146 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams, abdominal approach
  

(Do not report 58146 in addition to 58140-58145 or 58150-58240 [abdominal hysterectomy codes].)

• 58545 Laparoscopy, surgical, myomectomy, excision; 1 to 4 intramural myomas with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas
  
• 58546 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams
  

Coders should note that code 58551 (laparoscopy, surgical; with removal of leiomyomata [single or multiple]) has been deleted. In its place coders would report either 58545 or 58546. CPT has also clarified that the “abdominal approach” myomectomy codes should not be reported in addition to the abdominal hysterectomy codes (58150-58240).

Colposcopy procedures

CPT 2003 contains new and revised codes for colposcopy of the vulva, cervix, and vagina:

• 56820 Colposcopy of the vulva;
  
• 56821 with biopsy(s)
  
• 57420 Colposcopy of the entire vagina, with cervix if present;
  
• 57421 with biopsy(s)
  

 

(For cervicography, see Category III code 0003T.)

• 57452 Colposcopy of the cervix including upper/adjacent vagina;
  
• 57454 with biopsy(s) of the cervix and endocervical curettage
  
• 57455 with biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57456 with endocervical curettage
  
• 57460 with loop electrode biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57461 with loop electrode conization of the cervix
  

Coders should note the following guidelines:

• If colposcopy is performed on both the vagina and vulva, both procedures may be reported, with modifier -51 added to the code of lesser relative value.
  
• A superficial cervical examination is considered part of a complete vaginal examination (codes 57420 and 57421), if performed.
  
• If the main purpose of the examination is to evaluate the cervix, not the vagina, only the cervical colposcopy codes (54452-57461) would be reported.
  
• Colposcopy of the cervix codes (54452-57461) include an examination of the entire cervix as well as the upper/adjacent portion of the vagina.
  
• Code 57460 has been revised and code 57461 added to clarify the 2 different cervical loop electrode excision procedures that might be done in conjunction with colposcopy. Code 57460 includes removal of the exocervix and a portion of the transformation zone, if necessary. Code 57461 represents a conization procedure that takes all of the exocervix, the transformation zone, and some or all of the endocervix.
  
• An endocervical curettage is included as part of a conization; therefore code 57456 would not be reported in addition to code 57461.
  

Bladder procedures, incontinence testing

Three new codes were developed to replace HCPCS code G0002 (office procedure, insertion of temporary indwelling catheter, Foley type [separate procedure]). These would be reported only when the catheter insertion is an independent procedure, not part of another procedure.

Codes 53670 and 53675 (both catheterization procedures listed under the heading “urethra”) have been deleted. In their place are new codes that are more appropriate.

• 51701 Insertion of non-indwelling bladder catheter (e.g., straight catheterization for residual urine)
  
• 51702 Insertion of temporary indwelling bladder catheter; simple (e.g., Foley)
  
• 51703 complicated (e.g., altered anatomy, fractured catheter/balloon)
  

Urodynamics. Code 51798 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging) replaces code 78730, which had been inaccurately placed in CPT’s nuclear medicine section, as well as the HCPCS Level II G code G0050 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging). The new code represents a more accurate description of this noninvasive procedure, which uses a handheld Doppler ultrasonic device. This code represents only the technical component of the procedure, and is not associated with physician work that involves interpretation because the device gives a numeric result.

Abdominal procedures

• 49419 Insertion of intraperitoneal cannula or catheter, with subcutaneous reservoir, permanent (i.e., totally implantable)
  

This would be reported by gynecologic oncologists who want to provide intraperitoneal chemotherapy in women with ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. The procedure requires an incision and the creation of a pocket for the reservoir.

For the removal of these devices, use code 49422.

Blood collection

• 36415 Collection of venous blood by venipuncture
  
• 36416 Collection of capillary blood specimen (e.g., finger, heel, ear stick)
  

Code 36415 was revised and code 36416 was added to better assign blood collection methods, and so that HCPCS Temporary G code G0001—routine venipuncture for collection of specimen(s)—could be deleted.

Excising skin lesions

Coders now choose which skin-lesion code to report based on the total amount of tissue removed at the site during the operative session, not just lesion size. These codes were revised so it’s clear they describe a full-thickness removal of the lesion, including the margin, along with simple closure (if performed).

• 11420 Excision, benign lesion including margins, except skin tag (unless listed elsewhere), scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11421 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11422 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11423 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11424 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11426 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  
• 11620 Excision, malignant lesion including margins, scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11621 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11622 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11623 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11624 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11626 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  

Coding for new technology

Category III codes represent emerging technology, and several that may be of use to Ob/Gyns have been added. Note that payers may not yet reimburse for these procedures. These procedure codes are listed in the CPT book just prior to Appendix A.

When a Category III code accurately describes the procedure or service performed, use that code rather than an unlisted code. CPT adds Category III codes to its database in January and July. To check on any Category III code updates, go to www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/article/3885-4897.html:

 

• 0028T Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) body composition study, 1 or more sites.
  

This code represents the assessment of body fat composition—a procedure popular with athletes, but one unlikely to be covered by insurers in most cases. Its medical indications are generally children with growth disorders; adults with growth hormone deficiency; and patients with eating disorders, with rapid intervention or unintentional weight loss, or on long-term total parenteral nutrition.

• 0029T Treatment(s) for incontinence, pulsed magnetic neuromodula-tion, per day
  

This code would be used to report treatment with the NeoControl system (Neotonus, Inc., Marietta, Ga), in which the patient sits in a chair designed to induce contractions in the pelvic floor and urinary sphincter muscles via a pulsed magnetic field.

• 0030T Antiprothrombin (phospholipid cofactor) antibody, each Ig class
  

Code 0030T represents an antibody test to assess patients who may be at risk for, among other things, fetal loss.

• 0031T Speculoscopy;
  
• 0032T with directed sampling
  

These were added to report procedures, such as PapSure (Watson Diagnostics, Corona, Calif), in which light is used to examine the cervix for abnormal lesions and aid in specimen collection.

Ms. Witt reports no financial relationship with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article.

There’s good news and bad news for OBG coders in 2003. The bad news is that the wealth of new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes means practices must make some serious changes to their office procedures encounter form. The good news is that these long-awaited changes should make it easier for physicians to communicate to insurers the type and difficulty of many routine procedures.

In addition to the OBG-relevant changes highlighted in this article, a wide range of other code and editorial updates have been made. For instance, CPT has deleted the optional 5-digit modifier codes that could have been used instead of the 2 digit modifier. (For example, CPT defined that the modifier to signify a separate and significant E/M service could be reported as either modifier -25 or by using the code 09925. With CPT 2003, only the modifier would be reported.) This change was necessary because the uniform electronic claim set up as a result of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations can only accommodate 2-character modifiers. Coders should therefore review CPT 2003 in full to ensure that all relevant changes are captured.

A note about formatting: Codes marked in red are new in CPT 2003, while blue codes have been revised since the last edition. When a code has 1 or more indented codes following it, the indented text replaces everything following the semicolon in the initial code.

Updated pap smear codes

Pap smear codes have been revised to more clearly represent current screening techniques. Codes 88144 and 88145—which described the ThinPrep (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Mass) manual screening and computer-assisted rescreening—have been deleted, but 2 new codes have been added:

• 88174 Cytopathology, cervical or vaginal (any reporting system), collected in preservative fluid, automated thin layer preparation; screening by automated system, under physician supervision
  
• 88175 with screening by automated system and manual rescreening, under physician supervision
  

For manual screening, coders should refer to codes 88142 and 88143.

Counting leukocytes, testing semen

• 89055 leukocyte count, fecal
  

This new code, added to describe laboratory testing for fecal leukocytes, replaces the Health Care Financing Administrators Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II G code G0026 (fecal leukocyte examination).

• 89300 Semen analysis; presence and/or motility of sperm including Huhner test (post coital);
  
• 89310 Motility and count, not including Huhner test.
  

While 89300 has not changed, 89310 was revised to specifically exclude Huhner testing. It will replace the HCPCS Level II G code G0027 (semen analysis presence and/or motility of sperm excluding Huhner test).

The biggest change: diagnostic ultrasound codes

Possibly the most significant change in CPT coding comes in the area of obstetric ultrasound. These codes have been revamped to allow maternal-fetal specialists to report accurately the ultrasound procedures they perform. A new guideline note that precedes this section gives a clear definition of what the codes in that section include. For instance, the guidelines state regarding 2 of the codes:

“Codes 76801 and 76802 include determination of the number of gestational sacs and fetuses, gestational sac/fetal measurements appropriate for gestation (

Coders should spend time reviewing this section to ensure correct billing. Please also note that the codes 76802, 76810 and 76812 are designated by CPT as “add-on” codes. This means that they do not require a modifier to indicate a multiple procedure (i.e., modifier-51):

• 76801 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, first trimester (
• 76802 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76802 in conjunction with 76801.)

• 76805 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation, after first trimester (14 weeks 0 days), transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76810 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76810 in conjunction with 76805.)

• 76811 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, fetal and maternal evaluation plus detailed fetal anatomic examination, transabdominal approach; single or first gestation
  
• 76812 each additional gestation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure performed.)
  

(Use 76812 in conjunction with 76811.)

 

• 76815 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, limited (e.g., fetal heart beat, placental location, fetal position and/or qualitative amniotic fluid volume), 1 or more fetuses
  

(Use 76815 only once per exam, not per element.)

• 76816 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, follow-up (e.g., reevaluation of fetal size by measuring standard growth parameters and amniotic fluid volume, reevaluation of organ system[s] suspected or confirmed to be abnormal on a previous scan), transabdominal approach, per fetus
  

(Report 76816 with modifier -59 [distinct procedure] for each additional fetus examined in a multiple pregnancy.)

• 76817 Ultrasound, pregnant uterus, real time with image documentation, transvaginal
  

(If transvaginal examination is done in addition to transabdominal obstetrical ultrasound exam, use 76817 as well as the appropriate transabdominal exam code. For nonobstetrical transvaginal ultrasound, use code 76830 [ultrasound, transvaginal].)

Multiple births. There has also been a change in CPT instructions for coding multiple fetuses when performing a fetal biophysical profile (BPP). In the past, CPT instructed coders to use modifier -51 (multiple procedures) with each BPP code reported at that session after the first fetus (e.g., 76818, 76818-51 for twins). Now CPT indicates that a BPP done on additional fetuses should be reported separately by adding the modifier -59 (distinct procedure) to code 76818 (fetal biophysical profile; with non-stress testing) or 76819 (fetal biophysical profile without non-stress testing).

Transvaginal examination. CPT now explicitly states that if a transvaginal examination is done in addition to a transabdominal gynecologic ultrasound exam, coders should use code 76830 in addition to the appropriate transabdominal exam code (76856-76857).

Bone density studies

CPT now differentiates between a study done on the axial skeleton and one done on the peripheral skeleton, thanks to the revision of 1 code and the addition of a second:

• 76070 Computed tomography, bone mineral density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (e.g., hips, pelvis, spine)
  
• 76071 appendicular skeleton (peripheral) (e.g., radius, wrist, heel)
  

Vaginal hysterectomy

The codes listed below were revised or added to account for the additional work involved in removing a large uterus vaginally. Report these new codes when the operative report includes a description of how the uterus was removed—by bisection, morcellation, or myomectomy and coring—and confirms the weight of the uterus. As with an abdominal hysterectomy, fibroid removal prior to uterus removal is considered an integral part of the procedure, and therefore is not reported separately. Note that if the weight of the uterus is not known at the time the procedure is coded, the default would be to code for the uterus that weighs 250 g or less.

• 58550 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58552 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58553 Laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58554 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58260 Vaginal hysterectomy for uterus 250 grams or less;
  
• 58262 with removal of tube(s) and ovary(s)
  
• 58263 with removal of tube(s), and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58267 with colpo-urethrocystopexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58270 with repair of enterocele
  
• 58290 Vaginal hysterectomy, for uterus greater than 250 grams;
  
• 58291 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)
  
• 58292 with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s), with repair of enterocele
  
• 58293 with colpo-urethrocysto-pexy (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz type, Pereyra type) with or without endoscopic control
  
• 58294 with repair of enterocele
  

Myomectomy

CPT changed the uterine-fibroid removal codes to account for the more involved surgical work required for larger or multiple fibroids:

• 58140 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 1 to 4 intramural myoma(s) with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myoma(s); abdominal approach
  
• 58145 vaginal approach
  
• 58146 Myomectomy, excision of fibroid tumor(s) of uterus, 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams, abdominal approach
  

(Do not report 58146 in addition to 58140-58145 or 58150-58240 [abdominal hysterectomy codes].)

• 58545 Laparoscopy, surgical, myomectomy, excision; 1 to 4 intramural myomas with total weight of 250 grams or less and/or removal of surface myomas
  
• 58546 5 or more intramural myomas and/or intramural myomas with total weight greater than 250 grams
  

Coders should note that code 58551 (laparoscopy, surgical; with removal of leiomyomata [single or multiple]) has been deleted. In its place coders would report either 58545 or 58546. CPT has also clarified that the “abdominal approach” myomectomy codes should not be reported in addition to the abdominal hysterectomy codes (58150-58240).

Colposcopy procedures

CPT 2003 contains new and revised codes for colposcopy of the vulva, cervix, and vagina:

• 56820 Colposcopy of the vulva;
  
• 56821 with biopsy(s)
  
• 57420 Colposcopy of the entire vagina, with cervix if present;
  
• 57421 with biopsy(s)
  

 

(For cervicography, see Category III code 0003T.)

• 57452 Colposcopy of the cervix including upper/adjacent vagina;
  
• 57454 with biopsy(s) of the cervix and endocervical curettage
  
• 57455 with biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57456 with endocervical curettage
  
• 57460 with loop electrode biopsy(s) of the cervix
  
• 57461 with loop electrode conization of the cervix
  

Coders should note the following guidelines:

• If colposcopy is performed on both the vagina and vulva, both procedures may be reported, with modifier -51 added to the code of lesser relative value.
  
• A superficial cervical examination is considered part of a complete vaginal examination (codes 57420 and 57421), if performed.
  
• If the main purpose of the examination is to evaluate the cervix, not the vagina, only the cervical colposcopy codes (54452-57461) would be reported.
  
• Colposcopy of the cervix codes (54452-57461) include an examination of the entire cervix as well as the upper/adjacent portion of the vagina.
  
• Code 57460 has been revised and code 57461 added to clarify the 2 different cervical loop electrode excision procedures that might be done in conjunction with colposcopy. Code 57460 includes removal of the exocervix and a portion of the transformation zone, if necessary. Code 57461 represents a conization procedure that takes all of the exocervix, the transformation zone, and some or all of the endocervix.
  
• An endocervical curettage is included as part of a conization; therefore code 57456 would not be reported in addition to code 57461.
  

Bladder procedures, incontinence testing

Three new codes were developed to replace HCPCS code G0002 (office procedure, insertion of temporary indwelling catheter, Foley type [separate procedure]). These would be reported only when the catheter insertion is an independent procedure, not part of another procedure.

Codes 53670 and 53675 (both catheterization procedures listed under the heading “urethra”) have been deleted. In their place are new codes that are more appropriate.

• 51701 Insertion of non-indwelling bladder catheter (e.g., straight catheterization for residual urine)
  
• 51702 Insertion of temporary indwelling bladder catheter; simple (e.g., Foley)
  
• 51703 complicated (e.g., altered anatomy, fractured catheter/balloon)
  

Urodynamics. Code 51798 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging) replaces code 78730, which had been inaccurately placed in CPT’s nuclear medicine section, as well as the HCPCS Level II G code G0050 (measurement of postvoiding residual urine and/or bladder capacity by ultrasound, nonimaging). The new code represents a more accurate description of this noninvasive procedure, which uses a handheld Doppler ultrasonic device. This code represents only the technical component of the procedure, and is not associated with physician work that involves interpretation because the device gives a numeric result.

Abdominal procedures

• 49419 Insertion of intraperitoneal cannula or catheter, with subcutaneous reservoir, permanent (i.e., totally implantable)
  

This would be reported by gynecologic oncologists who want to provide intraperitoneal chemotherapy in women with ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. The procedure requires an incision and the creation of a pocket for the reservoir.

For the removal of these devices, use code 49422.

Blood collection

• 36415 Collection of venous blood by venipuncture
  
• 36416 Collection of capillary blood specimen (e.g., finger, heel, ear stick)
  

Code 36415 was revised and code 36416 was added to better assign blood collection methods, and so that HCPCS Temporary G code G0001—routine venipuncture for collection of specimen(s)—could be deleted.

Excising skin lesions

Coders now choose which skin-lesion code to report based on the total amount of tissue removed at the site during the operative session, not just lesion size. These codes were revised so it’s clear they describe a full-thickness removal of the lesion, including the margin, along with simple closure (if performed).

• 11420 Excision, benign lesion including margins, except skin tag (unless listed elsewhere), scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11421 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11422 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11423 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11424 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11426 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  
• 11620 Excision, malignant lesion including margins, scalp, neck, hands, feet, genitalia; excised diameter 0.5 cm or less
  
• 11621 excised diameter 0.6 to 1.0 cm
  
• 11622 excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm
  
• 11623 excised diameter 2.1 to 3.0 cm
  
• 11624 excised diameter 3.1 to 4.0 cm
  
• 11626 excised diameter over 4.0 cm
  

Coding for new technology

Category III codes represent emerging technology, and several that may be of use to Ob/Gyns have been added. Note that payers may not yet reimburse for these procedures. These procedure codes are listed in the CPT book just prior to Appendix A.

When a Category III code accurately describes the procedure or service performed, use that code rather than an unlisted code. CPT adds Category III codes to its database in January and July. To check on any Category III code updates, go to www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/article/3885-4897.html:

 

• 0028T Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) body composition study, 1 or more sites.
  

This code represents the assessment of body fat composition—a procedure popular with athletes, but one unlikely to be covered by insurers in most cases. Its medical indications are generally children with growth disorders; adults with growth hormone deficiency; and patients with eating disorders, with rapid intervention or unintentional weight loss, or on long-term total parenteral nutrition.

• 0029T Treatment(s) for incontinence, pulsed magnetic neuromodula-tion, per day
  

This code would be used to report treatment with the NeoControl system (Neotonus, Inc., Marietta, Ga), in which the patient sits in a chair designed to induce contractions in the pelvic floor and urinary sphincter muscles via a pulsed magnetic field.

• 0030T Antiprothrombin (phospholipid cofactor) antibody, each Ig class
  

Code 0030T represents an antibody test to assess patients who may be at risk for, among other things, fetal loss.

• 0031T Speculoscopy;
  
• 0032T with directed sampling
  

These were added to report procedures, such as PapSure (Watson Diagnostics, Corona, Calif), in which light is used to examine the cervix for abnormal lesions and aid in specimen collection.

Ms. Witt reports no financial relationship with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article.

<court>Wise County (Va) Circuit Court</court>

A woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with a history of amenorrhea, along with breast tenderness and inflammation. The physician treated the patient’s amenorrhea and referred her to a radiologist for a mammography.

The radiologist reported that the mammography and manual breast exam were normal. Shortly after, the woman changed physicians. During a visit, the new doctor found a breast mass and ordered a biopsy. Following the procedure, the woman underwent a right mastectomy, followed by 2 years of chemotherapy and radiation. She subsequently died.

In suing, the patient’s family claimed that if a prompt diagnosis had been made, she would have had a 70% chance of being cured.

The physician maintained that even if the cancer had been diagnosed earlier, the outcome would have been the same.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Wise County (Va) Circuit Court</court>

A woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with a history of amenorrhea, along with breast tenderness and inflammation. The physician treated the patient’s amenorrhea and referred her to a radiologist for a mammography.

The radiologist reported that the mammography and manual breast exam were normal. Shortly after, the woman changed physicians. During a visit, the new doctor found a breast mass and ordered a biopsy. Following the procedure, the woman underwent a right mastectomy, followed by 2 years of chemotherapy and radiation. She subsequently died.

In suing, the patient’s family claimed that if a prompt diagnosis had been made, she would have had a 70% chance of being cured.

The physician maintained that even if the cancer had been diagnosed earlier, the outcome would have been the same.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Wise County (Va) Circuit Court</court>

A woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with a history of amenorrhea, along with breast tenderness and inflammation. The physician treated the patient’s amenorrhea and referred her to a radiologist for a mammography.

The radiologist reported that the mammography and manual breast exam were normal. Shortly after, the woman changed physicians. During a visit, the new doctor found a breast mass and ordered a biopsy. Following the procedure, the woman underwent a right mastectomy, followed by 2 years of chemotherapy and radiation. She subsequently died.

In suing, the patient’s family claimed that if a prompt diagnosis had been made, she would have had a 70% chance of being cured.

The physician maintained that even if the cancer had been diagnosed earlier, the outcome would have been the same.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Va) Circuit Court

After delivering her second child, a 26-year-old woman experienced distress and severe pain, which clinicians attributed to pubic symphysitis and hemorrhoids. She was treated with diazepam and pain medication, to little avail.

Despite the patient’s continued complaints of severe pain and a call by the nursing staff requesting his return to the hospital, the obstetrician did not examine the patient, but instead ordered more pain medication. The woman then developed a fever of 101.5°, and her pulse dropped to 70/45. The physician, by phone, ordered a blood culture assay, which was abnormal.

Later that evening another physician was called in and noted that the woman was going into shock. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). After stabilizing, she underwent an emergency hysterectomy. For the next 5 weeks she remained in the ICU recovering from group A sepsis and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

The patient argued that had antibiotics been administered earlier, an emergency hysterectomy could have been avoided.

The obstetrician contended that the infection spread too quickly for surgery to have been prevented.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $625,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Va) Circuit Court

After delivering her second child, a 26-year-old woman experienced distress and severe pain, which clinicians attributed to pubic symphysitis and hemorrhoids. She was treated with diazepam and pain medication, to little avail.

Despite the patient’s continued complaints of severe pain and a call by the nursing staff requesting his return to the hospital, the obstetrician did not examine the patient, but instead ordered more pain medication. The woman then developed a fever of 101.5°, and her pulse dropped to 70/45. The physician, by phone, ordered a blood culture assay, which was abnormal.

Later that evening another physician was called in and noted that the woman was going into shock. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). After stabilizing, she underwent an emergency hysterectomy. For the next 5 weeks she remained in the ICU recovering from group A sepsis and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

The patient argued that had antibiotics been administered earlier, an emergency hysterectomy could have been avoided.

The obstetrician contended that the infection spread too quickly for surgery to have been prevented.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $625,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Va) Circuit Court

After delivering her second child, a 26-year-old woman experienced distress and severe pain, which clinicians attributed to pubic symphysitis and hemorrhoids. She was treated with diazepam and pain medication, to little avail.

Despite the patient’s continued complaints of severe pain and a call by the nursing staff requesting his return to the hospital, the obstetrician did not examine the patient, but instead ordered more pain medication. The woman then developed a fever of 101.5°, and her pulse dropped to 70/45. The physician, by phone, ordered a blood culture assay, which was abnormal.

Later that evening another physician was called in and noted that the woman was going into shock. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). After stabilizing, she underwent an emergency hysterectomy. For the next 5 weeks she remained in the ICU recovering from group A sepsis and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

The patient argued that had antibiotics been administered earlier, an emergency hysterectomy could have been avoided.

The obstetrician contended that the infection spread too quickly for surgery to have been prevented.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $625,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Kings County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an episiotomy during the delivery of her first child. After the procedure, she developed a rectovaginal fistula and complained of stool coming from her vagina. Her condition continued for 5 years until it was surgically repaired. Postoperatively, the woman was incapacitated for 3 months.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician failed to recognize that he had cut into her rectum during the episiotomy.

The physician contended that the fistula was caused by either a deep hematoma under the sutures or a subclinical infection that developed from suture granuloma.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Kings County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an episiotomy during the delivery of her first child. After the procedure, she developed a rectovaginal fistula and complained of stool coming from her vagina. Her condition continued for 5 years until it was surgically repaired. Postoperatively, the woman was incapacitated for 3 months.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician failed to recognize that he had cut into her rectum during the episiotomy.

The physician contended that the fistula was caused by either a deep hematoma under the sutures or a subclinical infection that developed from suture granuloma.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Kings County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an episiotomy during the delivery of her first child. After the procedure, she developed a rectovaginal fistula and complained of stool coming from her vagina. Her condition continued for 5 years until it was surgically repaired. Postoperatively, the woman was incapacitated for 3 months.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician failed to recognize that he had cut into her rectum during the episiotomy.

The physician contended that the fistula was caused by either a deep hematoma under the sutures or a subclinical infection that developed from suture granuloma.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Mo) Circuit Court

A 67-year-old woman presented to a hospital for total knee replacement surgery. Urine cultures taken prior to the procedure indicated the presence of E. coli, prompting physicians to place her on preoperative antibiotics. Postoperatively, the patient experienced seizures, which a neurologist was called in to control.

She was then admitted to a rehabilitation center where it was discovered that she had a fractured hip. Prior to the surgical repair of her hip, she was treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI) with antibiotics. Postoperatively, she developed seizures and went into renal failure. Results from a urine culture revealed 3 different strains of Pseudomonas, undetected before the surgery. She died soon after.

In suing, the patient’s husband claimed the physicians’ failure to diagnose and treat the Pseudomonas urinary tract infection and to effectively manage her kidney failure caused the woman’s death.

The doctors claimed that the patient did not have a UTI, but rather a colonization or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Further, they contended that the patient’s death was due to complications of her hip fracture.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Mo) Circuit Court

A 67-year-old woman presented to a hospital for total knee replacement surgery. Urine cultures taken prior to the procedure indicated the presence of E. coli, prompting physicians to place her on preoperative antibiotics. Postoperatively, the patient experienced seizures, which a neurologist was called in to control.

She was then admitted to a rehabilitation center where it was discovered that she had a fractured hip. Prior to the surgical repair of her hip, she was treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI) with antibiotics. Postoperatively, she developed seizures and went into renal failure. Results from a urine culture revealed 3 different strains of Pseudomonas, undetected before the surgery. She died soon after.

In suing, the patient’s husband claimed the physicians’ failure to diagnose and treat the Pseudomonas urinary tract infection and to effectively manage her kidney failure caused the woman’s death.

The doctors claimed that the patient did not have a UTI, but rather a colonization or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Further, they contended that the patient’s death was due to complications of her hip fracture.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Mo) Circuit Court

A 67-year-old woman presented to a hospital for total knee replacement surgery. Urine cultures taken prior to the procedure indicated the presence of E. coli, prompting physicians to place her on preoperative antibiotics. Postoperatively, the patient experienced seizures, which a neurologist was called in to control.

She was then admitted to a rehabilitation center where it was discovered that she had a fractured hip. Prior to the surgical repair of her hip, she was treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI) with antibiotics. Postoperatively, she developed seizures and went into renal failure. Results from a urine culture revealed 3 different strains of Pseudomonas, undetected before the surgery. She died soon after.

In suing, the patient’s husband claimed the physicians’ failure to diagnose and treat the Pseudomonas urinary tract infection and to effectively manage her kidney failure caused the woman’s death.

The doctors claimed that the patient did not have a UTI, but rather a colonization or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Further, they contended that the patient’s death was due to complications of her hip fracture.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Westchester County (NY) Supreme Court

A 19-year-old female presented to a woman’s center for an abortion. On the first day of the 2-day procedure, the physician inserted 3 laminaria into the patient’s vagina in order to stretch the cervix. The following day, a second physician performed the abortion under real-time ultrasound.

Eight years later, the patient experienced severe cramping and bleeding, which led to a laparoscopy. Clinicians discovered that the laminaria used during the abortion remained inside the woman.

In suing, the plaintiff claimed that she suffered cramping and heavy bleeding during menstruation as well as pelvic pain for the full 8 years between the 2 procedures. She contended that the first doctor, who had since deceased, inserted the laminaria into her uterus, rather than her cervix. She further maintained that the physician who performed the abortion was also negligent for not discovering and removing the laminaria.

The doctor who performed the abortion argued the deceased doctor misplaced the laminaria; since there was no trace of them on ultrasound, he assumed they had discharged spontaneously. The defense for the deceased physician claimed the second doctor was fully responsible for not removing the laminaria.

• The jury found both defendants liable and awarded the plaintiff $200,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Westchester County (NY) Supreme Court

A 19-year-old female presented to a woman’s center for an abortion. On the first day of the 2-day procedure, the physician inserted 3 laminaria into the patient’s vagina in order to stretch the cervix. The following day, a second physician performed the abortion under real-time ultrasound.

Eight years later, the patient experienced severe cramping and bleeding, which led to a laparoscopy. Clinicians discovered that the laminaria used during the abortion remained inside the woman.

In suing, the plaintiff claimed that she suffered cramping and heavy bleeding during menstruation as well as pelvic pain for the full 8 years between the 2 procedures. She contended that the first doctor, who had since deceased, inserted the laminaria into her uterus, rather than her cervix. She further maintained that the physician who performed the abortion was also negligent for not discovering and removing the laminaria.

The doctor who performed the abortion argued the deceased doctor misplaced the laminaria; since there was no trace of them on ultrasound, he assumed they had discharged spontaneously. The defense for the deceased physician claimed the second doctor was fully responsible for not removing the laminaria.

• The jury found both defendants liable and awarded the plaintiff $200,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Westchester County (NY) Supreme Court

A 19-year-old female presented to a woman’s center for an abortion. On the first day of the 2-day procedure, the physician inserted 3 laminaria into the patient’s vagina in order to stretch the cervix. The following day, a second physician performed the abortion under real-time ultrasound.

Eight years later, the patient experienced severe cramping and bleeding, which led to a laparoscopy. Clinicians discovered that the laminaria used during the abortion remained inside the woman.

In suing, the plaintiff claimed that she suffered cramping and heavy bleeding during menstruation as well as pelvic pain for the full 8 years between the 2 procedures. She contended that the first doctor, who had since deceased, inserted the laminaria into her uterus, rather than her cervix. She further maintained that the physician who performed the abortion was also negligent for not discovering and removing the laminaria.

The doctor who performed the abortion argued the deceased doctor misplaced the laminaria; since there was no trace of them on ultrasound, he assumed they had discharged spontaneously. The defense for the deceased physician claimed the second doctor was fully responsible for not removing the laminaria.

• The jury found both defendants liable and awarded the plaintiff $200,000.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy after a long history of uterine fibroids, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and pelvic pain.

For a year following the procedure, the patient continued to experience intermittent pelvic and abdominal pain. A laparoscopy revealed a partial left ovary that had not been removed during the initial surgery.

In suing, the woman alleged that the physician was negligent in his performance of the hysterectomy, leaving the cervix intact and failing to completely remove both ovaries. In addition, the doctor failed to notice the presence of ovarian tissue in several postoperative pelvic sonograms. The woman contended that because she had endometriosis, the retained ovarian tissue heightened her pain.

The physician argued that the patient had a distorted pelvic anatomy, with pelvic adhesions that pulled the fallopian tubes and ovaries out of their normal anatomic alignment. During the surgery, he claimed, the adhesions impeded his ability to tell whether he had completely removed the ovaries. Regardless, the doctor maintained that the woman’s residual pain was due to the adhesions, not problems stemming from her hysterectomy.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy after a long history of uterine fibroids, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and pelvic pain.

For a year following the procedure, the patient continued to experience intermittent pelvic and abdominal pain. A laparoscopy revealed a partial left ovary that had not been removed during the initial surgery.

In suing, the woman alleged that the physician was negligent in his performance of the hysterectomy, leaving the cervix intact and failing to completely remove both ovaries. In addition, the doctor failed to notice the presence of ovarian tissue in several postoperative pelvic sonograms. The woman contended that because she had endometriosis, the retained ovarian tissue heightened her pain.

The physician argued that the patient had a distorted pelvic anatomy, with pelvic adhesions that pulled the fallopian tubes and ovaries out of their normal anatomic alignment. During the surgery, he claimed, the adhesions impeded his ability to tell whether he had completely removed the ovaries. Regardless, the doctor maintained that the woman’s residual pain was due to the adhesions, not problems stemming from her hysterectomy.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (NY) Supreme Court

A woman underwent an abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy after a long history of uterine fibroids, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and pelvic pain.

For a year following the procedure, the patient continued to experience intermittent pelvic and abdominal pain. A laparoscopy revealed a partial left ovary that had not been removed during the initial surgery.

In suing, the woman alleged that the physician was negligent in his performance of the hysterectomy, leaving the cervix intact and failing to completely remove both ovaries. In addition, the doctor failed to notice the presence of ovarian tissue in several postoperative pelvic sonograms. The woman contended that because she had endometriosis, the retained ovarian tissue heightened her pain.

The physician argued that the patient had a distorted pelvic anatomy, with pelvic adhesions that pulled the fallopian tubes and ovaries out of their normal anatomic alignment. During the surgery, he claimed, the adhesions impeded his ability to tell whether he had completely removed the ovaries. Regardless, the doctor maintained that the woman’s residual pain was due to the adhesions, not problems stemming from her hysterectomy.

• The jury returned a verdict for the defense.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Genesee County (Mich) Circuit Court</court>

A 30-year-old woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with venereal warts. The physician removed them via cauterization. Following the procedure, the patient developed adhesions. She now has permanent scarring and experiences pain during intercourse.

In suing, the woman claimed that cauterization was unnecessary. In addition, she alleged that if she had received timely followup care, the adhesions could have been rubbed away.

The physician argued that the cauterization was appropriate. Further, he contended that aftercare was indeed scheduled, but the patient failed to make the appointment. The woman’s medical files, however, showed no record of any scheduled follow-up.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Genesee County (Mich) Circuit Court</court>

A 30-year-old woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with venereal warts. The physician removed them via cauterization. Following the procedure, the patient developed adhesions. She now has permanent scarring and experiences pain during intercourse.

In suing, the woman claimed that cauterization was unnecessary. In addition, she alleged that if she had received timely followup care, the adhesions could have been rubbed away.

The physician argued that the cauterization was appropriate. Further, he contended that aftercare was indeed scheduled, but the patient failed to make the appointment. The woman’s medical files, however, showed no record of any scheduled follow-up.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Genesee County (Mich) Circuit Court</court>

A 30-year-old woman presented to her Ob/Gyn with venereal warts. The physician removed them via cauterization. Following the procedure, the patient developed adhesions. She now has permanent scarring and experiences pain during intercourse.

In suing, the woman claimed that cauterization was unnecessary. In addition, she alleged that if she had received timely followup care, the adhesions could have been rubbed away.

The physician argued that the cauterization was appropriate. Further, he contended that aftercare was indeed scheduled, but the patient failed to make the appointment. The woman’s medical files, however, showed no record of any scheduled follow-up.

• The jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Minn) District Court

A woman suffering from irregular and painful menses of unknown etiology presented to a hospital for a hysterectomy. A pregnancy test was not performed, given the patient’s 20-year history of infertility.

During the procedure, uterine curettings at frozen section revealed a decidualized benign endometrium, but the pathologist did not find chorionic villi. The operating physician subsequently performed a pelvic examination, during which he discovered an enlarged uterus. Despite 2 findings consistent with pregnancy, the doctor proceeded with the hysterectomy and discovered a fetus of about 12 weeks’ gestation. Further pathological review revealed well-developed villi, along with a normal fetus, placenta, and cord.

In suing, the patient claimed that she should have received a pregnancy test prior to undergoing the hysterectomy, despite her history of infertility. In addition, she argued that the decidualized benign endometrium and enlarged uterus should have prompted the doctor to stop the procedure and perform a pregnancy test. The plaintiff further claimed that she would have delivered a viable infant had these standards of practice been followed.

The physician contended that given the patient’s history and her claim that she had menstruated 3 to 4 weeks prior, a preoperative pregnancy test was unnecessary. In addition, he claimed, since chorionic villi were not found on frozen section, it was not inappropriate to continue with the hysterectomy.

• The case settled for $160,000 at mediation.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Minn) District Court

A woman suffering from irregular and painful menses of unknown etiology presented to a hospital for a hysterectomy. A pregnancy test was not performed, given the patient’s 20-year history of infertility.

During the procedure, uterine curettings at frozen section revealed a decidualized benign endometrium, but the pathologist did not find chorionic villi. The operating physician subsequently performed a pelvic examination, during which he discovered an enlarged uterus. Despite 2 findings consistent with pregnancy, the doctor proceeded with the hysterectomy and discovered a fetus of about 12 weeks’ gestation. Further pathological review revealed well-developed villi, along with a normal fetus, placenta, and cord.

In suing, the patient claimed that she should have received a pregnancy test prior to undergoing the hysterectomy, despite her history of infertility. In addition, she argued that the decidualized benign endometrium and enlarged uterus should have prompted the doctor to stop the procedure and perform a pregnancy test. The plaintiff further claimed that she would have delivered a viable infant had these standards of practice been followed.

The physician contended that given the patient’s history and her claim that she had menstruated 3 to 4 weeks prior, a preoperative pregnancy test was unnecessary. In addition, he claimed, since chorionic villi were not found on frozen section, it was not inappropriate to continue with the hysterectomy.

• The case settled for $160,000 at mediation.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Undisclosed County (Minn) District Court

A woman suffering from irregular and painful menses of unknown etiology presented to a hospital for a hysterectomy. A pregnancy test was not performed, given the patient’s 20-year history of infertility.

During the procedure, uterine curettings at frozen section revealed a decidualized benign endometrium, but the pathologist did not find chorionic villi. The operating physician subsequently performed a pelvic examination, during which he discovered an enlarged uterus. Despite 2 findings consistent with pregnancy, the doctor proceeded with the hysterectomy and discovered a fetus of about 12 weeks’ gestation. Further pathological review revealed well-developed villi, along with a normal fetus, placenta, and cord.

In suing, the patient claimed that she should have received a pregnancy test prior to undergoing the hysterectomy, despite her history of infertility. In addition, she argued that the decidualized benign endometrium and enlarged uterus should have prompted the doctor to stop the procedure and perform a pregnancy test. The plaintiff further claimed that she would have delivered a viable infant had these standards of practice been followed.

The physician contended that given the patient’s history and her claim that she had menstruated 3 to 4 weeks prior, a preoperative pregnancy test was unnecessary. In addition, he claimed, since chorionic villi were not found on frozen section, it was not inappropriate to continue with the hysterectomy.

• The case settled for $160,000 at mediation.
  

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.