When Waiting Kills: The Rising Risk of Delay‑Based Malpractice

Growing appointment backlogs, pandemic-era staffing shortages, and persistent access problems have already generated a measurable uptick in “delay-in-treatment” malpractice suits. Courts still apply traditional negligence elements—duty, breach of the relevant standard of care, causation, and damages—but recent case law and empirical data show that timeliness is increasingly treated as an indispensable component of the physician’s duty. Consequently, prolonged waits for evaluation or referral can enlarge professional liability exposure when (i) the delay is medically unreasonable in the circumstances, and (ii) plaintiffs can demonstrate that earlier intervention more probably than not would have altered the clinical outcome. Because both factual predicates are becoming easier to prove—through electronic time-stamped records, published triage guidelines, and expert testimony—providers who fail to build capacity, document triage decisions, or offer alternative pathways such as telehealth face rising litigation risk.

A. Duty and Standard of Care

Every malpractice action begins with the statutory or common-law duty to exercise the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed by reasonably careful practitioners under similar circumstances. Courts have long held that this standard is dynamic and includes timely diagnosis and treatment when delay foreseeably threatens harm.

Ethical authorities reinforce the legal duty: Opinion 10.8 of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics instructs physicians to “ensure that all stakeholders have timely access to consultation services in non-emergent situations and as feasible for urgent consultations,” embedding promptness into professional norms.

B. Breach

A breach occurs when provider conduct falls below the timeliness embedded in the specialty-specific standard. Illustrative examples include:

• Failure to follow institutional triage protocols in the emergency department;
  
  
• Scheduling bottlenecks that postpone critical imaging or referrals beyond evidence-based windows; and
  
  
• Physician absenteeism leading to deferred rounds or discharges.

C. Causation and Damages

Even where breach is clear, plaintiffs must prove—typically through expert testimony—that the delay was a proximate cause of injury and that earlier care would have produced a materially better outcome. morrisjames.comyounginjurylaw.com This element remains the principal barrier to liability, but electronic health-record time stamps and comparative-effectiveness literature have made the counterfactual increasingly tractable for juries. ankinlaw.compowlesslaw.com

II. Empirical Signals of Heightened Exposure

A. Appointment Backlogs

A December 2024 MGMA poll of 251 practice leaders found that 23 % reported worsening appointment wait times, despite modest improvements elsewhere. Longer lead times amplify the interval between symptom onset and clinical evaluation, a fact plaintiffs’ experts routinely leverage when quantifying lost survival curves in cancer litigation.

B. Pandemic-Related Delays

COVID-19 produced unprecedented postponements of elective and even urgent care. A 2025 PubMed review of spinal-care lawsuits showed a marked increase in filings alleging pandemic-related appointment deferrals, with most plaintiffs citing inability to secure specialist visits or imaging. Parallel reporting in STAT notes that the post-pandemic wave of delayed-care cases is now reaching verdict—and producing eight-figure awards.

C. Staffing Shortfalls

Corporate decisions that thin staffing or consolidate service lines can create systemic exposure. In HCA Health Services of Florida v. Berlin, the Florida Fourth DCA highlighted how evidence of chronic understaffing may support an inference of negligent delay. Internal memoranda, scheduling records, and whistle-blower testimony often supply plaintiffs with proof of foreseeability and breach.

III. Doctrinal Trends in Litigation

A. Emergency-Department Delay

Statutes in many states impose an “imminent peril” or “stabilize and transfer” obligation under EMTALA-look-alike provisions. Failure to meet triage benchmarks has supported negligence per se theories in Oklahoma and Kentucky trial courts.

B. Outpatient and Telehealth Contexts

Although missed or rescheduled office visits rarely create liability by themselves, courts increasingly scrutinize whether providers offered reasonable alternatives (e.g., expedited diagnostics, telehealth, or referral). Texas litigation catalogued by Winckler & Harvey illustrates successful claims where a no-show physician neglected to arrange substitute coverage, and the patient suffered stroke progression.

C. Institutional Liability

Hospitals and group practices face direct liability for negligent scheduling systems and vicarious liability for physician delays. Federal docket materials from the G.A.S. bowel torsion case show how plaintiffs link systemic scheduling flaws to catastrophic organ loss.

IV. Practical Risk-Management Strategies

1. Capacity Modeling and Queue Analytics – Data-driven staffing aligned with peak demand reduces wait times and demonstrates adherence to quality-improvement ethics guidelines.
2. Time-Stamped Documentation – Recording the rationale for any delay (e.g., patient choice, resource scarcity) preserves contemporaneous evidence of reasonableness.
3. Escalation Pathways – Written protocols empowering nurses or physician assistants to escalate deteriorating cases mitigate allegations of passive delay.
4. Telemedicine Contingencies – Offering same-day virtual assessments helps close diagnostic windows when in-person slots are scarce, undercutting breach arguments.
5. Informed-Wait Disclosure – Communicating foreseeable risks of delay and documenting patient consent mirrors emerging “failure-to-inform” jurisprudence and meets AMA transparency expectations.

V. Outlook: Will Delay-Based Liability Increase?

The short answer is yes, but selectively. Three converging vectors—greater empirical scrutiny of time-to-treatment, expanding post-pandemic dockets, and judicial receptivity to staffing-related breaches—make it more likely that delay allegations will survive dispositive motions. Yet plaintiffs still shoulder the causation burden, and defense victories remain common when expert testimony demonstrates that earlier intervention would not have changed the outcome or that delays were justified by triage acuity.

Health-care entities that proactively integrate queue-management science, robust documentation, and patient-communication protocols can materially limit exposure. Those that do not may find that what once was “mere inconvenience” is now prima facie evidence of negligence in the eyes of jurors steeped in post-COVID expectations of timely care.

Contact Us Today!

With Med Legal Pro’s extensive network of qualified expert witnesses, we are dedicated to helping you build a strong and compelling case. Our expert witnesses will help ensure you have the best chance at winning your medical lawsuit.