$12,000,000 Jury Verdict For Woman When Physicians Misdiagnosed Her Breast Cancer
Among the primary tools available to help physicians in saving the lives of female patients is the mammogram, a test that checks for evidence of possible cancer in the breast, allowing physicians to find the cancer in its early stages. However the mammogram is only as reliable as the doctor who interprets it. If the physician misreads the mammogram the cancer can be undiscovered until a future mammogram or such time as a lump is found by a breast examination. This delay might be sufficient time for the cancer to metastasize, decreasing the odds that the patient will be able to conserve the breast or outlive the cancer.
As an example, look at the documented lawsuit of a woman who went in for a routine mammogram and was told that there was no sign of cancer. Around 2 years subsequently, the patient underwent another mammogram. This time the mammogram was interpreted as displaying no change to the dilated duct from the previous mammogram. However, the prior mammogram had not revealed a dilated duct and hence the doctors did nothing to study the suspicious reverse from the prior, clean, mammogram. Her mammogram was misinterpreted and her cancer was not detected.
When the woman had a subsequent mammogram done at another hospital the next year, the physician interpreting the mammogram noted various small nodular densities. The doctor documented that these remained unchanged from the earlier mammograms. Still, neither of the preceding mammograms had indicated any nodular densities. Once again, her mammogram was misinterpreted and again her cancer was not detected.
When she was at last diagnosed at a later date, the woman had advanced breast cancer that had metastasized. It was moreover found that the area that had earlier been interpreted to be a dilated duct was location of the primary tumor. She initiated a medical malpractice case against both physicians and hospitals.
The doctor and hospital that interpreted the third mammogram as showing small nodular densities settled for an undisclosed amount less that the $2,000,000 available in insurance coverage. The doctor and hospital that incorrectly interpreted the previous 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 might have been diagnosed while only a Stage 1 cancer, which normally has a 5 year survival rate higher than 90%. The law firm that handled the case reported that the trial resulted in an award of $12,000,000.
This is a good matter to consider for several reasons. To begin, two different mammograms were incorrectly interpreted by 2 different doctors at two distinct hospitals. Plus both physicians attributed findings to prior mammograms which were actually not 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. However the likelihood of this happening twice at two hospitals is highly improbable. However the amount of negligence that would be required otherwise is genuinely unexcusable. The jury seems to have agreed.