Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
Texto Completo: https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=5006059
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/50129
Resumo: INTRODUCTION: The number of complaints against physicians has increased in Brazil, especially in plastic surgery. This may be attributed to deterioration in the physician-patient relationship and patient dissatisfaction with the surgical outcome. Few studies on the causes of these lawsuits are available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the main causes of complaints regarding plastic surgery and evaluate the influence of the expert report on trial results. METHODS: Assessment of claims against plastic surgeons with a court decision rendered between April 2000 and March 2015 by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais of second instance. RESULTS: The main complaint (31%) was dissatisfaction with the general surgical outcome, followed by unsightly scar (25%), and asymmetries (11%). Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the physician, 64% were considered unfounded in the first and second instances; 23% were upheld in both instances; and 13% had the decision changed from well-founded to unfounded in the second instance. Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the patient, 91% were upheld in both instances, and 9% had the decision changed from unfounded to well-founded in the second instance. Overall, 46% of cases were upheld and 43% were considered unfounded in both instances. Only 11% of cases had the decision changed from the first to the second instance. CONCLUSIONS: Most of patient complaints were related to events inherent to the surgical procedure, predicted as eventual complications. The expert conclusions were instrumental for the court decision in favor of or against the plastic surgeon. In most cases, the first instance decision was upheld at the second instance.
id UFSP_81e830aa722ceb54701a64dfb71738a8
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/50129
network_acronym_str UFSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository_id_str 3465
spelling Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas GeraisJudicial litigation between patient and plastic surgeonJurisprudenceLegislationPlastic SurgeryInformed consentJurisprudênciaLegislaçãoCirurgia PlásticaConsentimento livre e esclarecidoINTRODUCTION: The number of complaints against physicians has increased in Brazil, especially in plastic surgery. This may be attributed to deterioration in the physician-patient relationship and patient dissatisfaction with the surgical outcome. Few studies on the causes of these lawsuits are available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the main causes of complaints regarding plastic surgery and evaluate the influence of the expert report on trial results. METHODS: Assessment of claims against plastic surgeons with a court decision rendered between April 2000 and March 2015 by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais of second instance. RESULTS: The main complaint (31%) was dissatisfaction with the general surgical outcome, followed by unsightly scar (25%), and asymmetries (11%). Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the physician, 64% were considered unfounded in the first and second instances; 23% were upheld in both instances; and 13% had the decision changed from well-founded to unfounded in the second instance. Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the patient, 91% were upheld in both instances, and 9% had the decision changed from unfounded to well-founded in the second instance. Overall, 46% of cases were upheld and 43% were considered unfounded in both instances. Only 11% of cases had the decision changed from the first to the second instance. CONCLUSIONS: Most of patient complaints were related to events inherent to the surgical procedure, predicted as eventual complications. The expert conclusions were instrumental for the court decision in favor of or against the plastic surgeon. In most cases, the first instance decision was upheld at the second instance.INTRODUÇÃO: O número de processos contra médicos no Brasil tem aumentado, especialmente em cirurgia plástica. Esse aumento é atribuído à degeneração da relação médico-paciente e a insatisfação com o resultado obtido na cirurgia; há pouca abordagem das causas desses processos. OBJETIVO: Definir as principais causas que levam a processos em cirurgia plástica e verificar a influência da perícia médica no resultado do julgamento. MÉTODOS: Análise dos processos contra cirurgiões plásticos no Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais, em segunda instância, no período de abril de 2000 a março de 2015. RESULTADOS: A principal queixa dos pacientes (31%) foi insatisfação com o resultado geral da cirurgia, seguida de cicatriz inestética (25%) e assimetrias (11%). Entre os processos onde a perícia não verificou alteração, 64% foram julgados improcedentes em primeira e segunda instância; 23% foram julgados procedentes em primeira e segunda instância e, em 13%, houve uma mudança de decisão de procedente para improcedente na segunda instância. Nos processos em que a perícia verificou alteração, 91% foram considerados procedentes em primeira e segunda instância e, em 9%, houve uma mudança de decisão de improcedente para procedente na segunda instância. Entre todos os processos, 46% foram julgados procedentes e 43% foram julgados improcedentes em primeira e segunda instância. Somente 11% dos processos tiveram seus resultados alterados da primeira para a segunda instância. CONCLUSÕES: Procedimentos cirúrgicos em abdome e mama são as principais cirurgias que levaram a processos em cirurgia plástica. As principais queixas foram insatisfação com o resultado cirúrgico, cicatrizes inestéticas e assimetrias. O parecer da perícia foi fundamental na condenação ou absolvição do cirurgião plástico. Na maioria dos casos, a decisão de primeira instância foi mantida na segunda instância.Dados abertos - Sucupira - Teses e dissertações (2017)Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Ferreira, Lydia Masako [UNIFESP]Gomes, Heitor Francisco de Carvalho [UNIFESP]http://lattes.cnpq.br/2266460253828291http://lattes.cnpq.br/1619822351741819http://lattes.cnpq.br/2877096920693550Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]2019-06-19T14:57:29Z2019-06-19T14:57:29Z2017-04-07info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion140 f.application/pdfhttps://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=5006059http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/50129porSão Pauloinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESPinstname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)instacron:UNIFESP2024-08-02T15:40:49Zoai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/50129Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.unifesp.br/oai/requestbiblioteca.csp@unifesp.bropendoar:34652024-08-02T15:40:49Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
Judicial litigation between patient and plastic surgeon
title Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
spellingShingle Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]
Jurisprudence
Legislation
Plastic Surgery
Informed consent
Jurisprudência
Legislação
Cirurgia Plástica
Consentimento livre e esclarecido
title_short Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
title_full Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
title_fullStr Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
title_full_unstemmed Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
title_sort Litígio judicial entre paciente e cirurgião plástico em Minas Gerais
author Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]
author_facet Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Ferreira, Lydia Masako [UNIFESP]
Gomes, Heitor Francisco de Carvalho [UNIFESP]
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2266460253828291
http://lattes.cnpq.br/1619822351741819
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2877096920693550
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Menezes, Jorge Antonio de [UNIFESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Jurisprudence
Legislation
Plastic Surgery
Informed consent
Jurisprudência
Legislação
Cirurgia Plástica
Consentimento livre e esclarecido
topic Jurisprudence
Legislation
Plastic Surgery
Informed consent
Jurisprudência
Legislação
Cirurgia Plástica
Consentimento livre e esclarecido
description INTRODUCTION: The number of complaints against physicians has increased in Brazil, especially in plastic surgery. This may be attributed to deterioration in the physician-patient relationship and patient dissatisfaction with the surgical outcome. Few studies on the causes of these lawsuits are available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the main causes of complaints regarding plastic surgery and evaluate the influence of the expert report on trial results. METHODS: Assessment of claims against plastic surgeons with a court decision rendered between April 2000 and March 2015 by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais of second instance. RESULTS: The main complaint (31%) was dissatisfaction with the general surgical outcome, followed by unsightly scar (25%), and asymmetries (11%). Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the physician, 64% were considered unfounded in the first and second instances; 23% were upheld in both instances; and 13% had the decision changed from well-founded to unfounded in the second instance. Of the cases where the expert conclusions favored the patient, 91% were upheld in both instances, and 9% had the decision changed from unfounded to well-founded in the second instance. Overall, 46% of cases were upheld and 43% were considered unfounded in both instances. Only 11% of cases had the decision changed from the first to the second instance. CONCLUSIONS: Most of patient complaints were related to events inherent to the surgical procedure, predicted as eventual complications. The expert conclusions were instrumental for the court decision in favor of or against the plastic surgeon. In most cases, the first instance decision was upheld at the second instance.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-04-07
2019-06-19T14:57:29Z
2019-06-19T14:57:29Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=5006059
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/50129
url https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=5006059
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/50129
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 140 f.
application/pdf
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron:UNIFESP
instname_str Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron_str UNIFESP
institution UNIFESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv biblioteca.csp@unifesp.br
_version_ 1814268285439442944