Radiology malpractice cases more frequently involve diagnostic errors, severe patient outcomes, outpatient settings, and higher indemnity payments than other specialties, according to a study published August 25 in Radiology. 

Led by Divya Kumari, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers further found that these trends increased over a 30-year period and varied by state legal environment, with implications in efforts to reduce malpractice exposure.   

"Improved understanding of these factors may inform radiology-specific risk mitigation efforts and support evidence-based policy discussions aimed at balancing patient protection with sustainable clinical practice," the group wrote. 

Radiologists face substantial malpractice risk, the authors noted. Prior studies based on surveys or legal databases may not reflect national trends, however, and national-scale analyses using objective data remain limited, they added. 

To bridge the gap, the group analyzed all physician malpractice payments in the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) from September 1990 to December 2024. The NPDB captures paid claims regardless of whether a malpractice case results in a publicly reported decision, providing broad national coverage of malpractice payments involving radiologists, the group noted. 

The study included 399,568 malpractice cases involving 229,276 physicians (mean age 44 years old ± 10.9, sex not reported). Key findings included the following: 

• Radiology malpractice claims were more likely than those in other specialties to involve diagnostic errors (71.3% versus 27.6%; p

• Severe patient outcome (odds ratio, 8.64; p

• Recent radiology malpractice cases (2010 to 2025) had higher payments than earlier cases (1990 to 2010) (mean ± standard error, $344,197 ± $12,802 versus $184,000 ± $9873; p

"One potential contributor to higher payments is the evidentiary role of imaging in malpractice proceedings," the group wrote. "Imaging studies generate durable, reviewable records that can be retrospectively evaluated by expert witnesses and triers of fact. Compared with other clinical decisions that rely on undocumented reasoning or real-time judgment, radiologic interpretations may be perceived as more objective and therefore more amenable to retrospective critique." 

The analysis suggests that efforts to reduce malpractice exposure in radiology should concentrate on specific failure points in the diagnostic process rather than on physician characteristics or practice location, the researchers added. 

Future directions for the work include deeper analysis of specific radiologic subspecialties, such as interventional radiology or breast imaging, to assess whether trends in malpractice claims vary by clinical focus, the group wrote. 

The full study is available here.