Doctors To Pay $12. Million Jury Verdict In Claim Regarding Delayed Diagnosis Of Breast Cancer
By: J. Hernandez
Submitted: 2010-10-29 02:40:55 | Word Count: 581
The mammogram is an important tool available to doctors to diagnose a woman's breast cancer while it is still in the early stages, thus saving the lives of these women. However the mammogram is only as effective as the physician who interprets it. Whenever an error is made in reading a mammogram it could delay the detection of the patient's cancer. During this time, the cancer might become advanced. By reaching an advanced stage, the woman has a reduced five year survival rate. This means that the odds of her passing away of the cancer go up considerably.
As an example, look at the reported case of a woman who went in for a routine mammogram and was told that there was no evidence of cancer. About 2 years subsequently, she had another mammogram. This time the mammogram was interpreted as exhibiting no change to the dilated duct from the previous mammogram. However, the prior mammogram had not shown a dilated duct and hence the doctors did nothing to look into the suspicious change from the previous, clean, mammogram. Her mammogram was misinterpreted and her cancer was not detected. When the woman went in for another mammogram at another hospital the following year, the physician interpreting the mammogram documented a number of small nodular densities. The physician documented that these had not changed from the past mammograms. However, the two past mammograms included no signs of nodular densities. Once again, her mammogram was misinterpreted and again her cancer was not found.
[ advertisement ]
When she was finally diagnosed at a later date, she had stage 4 breast cancer that had spread. It was also discovered that the position that had earlier been labelled a dilated duct was the site of the primary tumor. She pursued a medical malpractice case against both doctors and hospitals.
The doctor and hospital that interpreted the third mammogram as indicating small nodular densities settled for an undisclosed sum in an amount less that the $2.0 million available in insurance coverage. The doctor and hospital that misread the earlier mammogram would not settle for the full amount of the policy, offering only $125,000. The case went to trial where evidence was presented that had the mammogram not been misread the cancer could have been found while still a Stage 1 cancer, which usually has a 5 year survival rate well above 90%. The law firm that represented the woman reported that the jury gave her $12.0 million.
This is a good matter to consider for various reasons. To begin, two independent mammograms were incorrectly interpreted by two distinct doctors at two different hospitals. Also the two doctors attributed findings to past mammograms which were actually not present in those earlier mammograms. It is difficult to explain how this might have taken place unless the physicians both looked at a different patient's mammogram as the comparison. But the likelihood of this happening twice at 2 different hospitals is highly improbable. Yet the level of carelessness that would be needed otherwise is genuinely unexcusable. In this case, the jury appears to have agreed.
Author Resource:-
Joseph Hernandez is an attorney accepting cancer malpractice cases. For a free attorney consultation regarding breast cancer and other cancer matters including metastatic colon cancer and other cancer matters including visit the websites
