Wow, look at us in the second to last week of April! How are you doing? I want you to take a moment and take in your surroundings, appreciate where you are, how far you’ve come, and appreciate yourself! You have come a long way. You should be so proud of yourself! The semester is almost over, the weather is getting warmer (minus the random snowfall that occurred), and summer is almost here! I hope you have a beautiful week ahead! This week, I have a medical malpractice case I want to share with you. Read on to find out more details on this Plaintiff’s case and his delayed cancer diagnosis.
On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, who is a smoker who smoked about one to two packs a day, reported to the emergency department because she had consistent abdominal pain and chest pain. The Plaintiff has a history of costochondritis which is inflammation of the cartilage that connects the rib to the sternum (breastbone). While in the emergency department, a resident and an attending physician ordered a chest X-ray to determine whether the symptoms were signaling pneumonia, infiltrate, pulmonary edema, or congestive heart failure.
Once the X-ray results were ready, they were reviewed by a radiologist who observed a nodular opacity (round shadow) measuring about 7 mm projecting over the left lower chest. The radiologist recommended another a repeat chest X-ray or chest CT to confirm and for further evaluation.
In the meantime, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Emergency department and was told that the chest X-ray was normal. However, later, the emergency department doctor added an addendum to discharge summary indicating that there was a nodule present on the X-ray but that it was likely just an “X-ray artifact” but should be followed up with a CT or another X-ray. It is disputed whether the doctor ever told the Plaintiff of such findings on the chest X-ray.
Over the next few years, the Plaintiff continued to see her primary care physician for sick visits but the chest X-ray results were never discussed. Along with that, no repeat chest X-rays or chest CT scans were performed on the Plaintiff.
Thereafter, on March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff reported with persistent cough, shortness of breath, and dyspnea (difficult breathing) every time she exhaled. A chest X-ray was performed on the Plaintiff which revealed a 4 cm mass over her left lower chest. At that time, Plaintiff was diagnosed was Stage 4 lung cancer with metastases to the brain, lung, and lymph nodes. The Plaintiff began chemotherapy and radiation therapy in May of 2013.
The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants should have communicated better regarding the need for possible follow-up with a chest CT. The Defendants however contended that there was no specific reason to get a chest CT and that the Plaintiff was aware of the finding and never asked her doctors about any follow-up imaging.
The case settled prior to trial in April of 2020 for $2 million. Around the time of the settlement, the Plaintiff’s lung cancer was stable and she was no longer undergoing any treatment. She continued to work and live independently.
Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly Vo. 50, No. 13
Would You Advocate for the Plaintiff or Defendants? Why?
I am glad she is still alive!!
ReplyDeleteKB.
DeleteKB, so am I!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is elementary. I would advocate for the patient in this particular case primarily because the patient has the privilege. [Corrected]
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Lady Esq! If you ask me, I would advocate for the patient because she did her duty by seeking help when she was having chest pain, etc. and she relied on the doctors to treat her. She should be able to rely on medical professionals as they are the professionals.Unfortunately, in this case, they failed to perform their duty.
DeleteI would advocate for the Plaintiff in a malpractice claim against the ER doctor for his negligence, and the hospital under vicarious liability claim if he was an employee rather than an independent contractor.
ReplyDeleteHere, it looks like the doctor ruled out the nodule as an x-ray artifact and reported his finding only in the discharge addendum. He then told the patient that her x-ray was normal and sent her home. This conduct is a misrepresentation of his profession in giving her false information about a serious health condition.
Physicians have a higher level of medical skills and experience to use a minimum level of care in treating their patients, which includes the duty to disclose pertinent health information to their patients, so the patients can make an informed decision about their treatments.
Although the case settled for $2 million, it's possible that a jury could have awarded her a bigger amount if the case went to trial.
Thank you for your detailed comment, Noel! I love how you pointed out that even though the case settled for $2 million, the jury would probably have returned a bigger verdict. I think so too!
Delete