Another "interesting" lawsuit.

[bigdan]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere earlier - sorry if someone else did it first. To VERY LOOSELY paraphrase:

Just got an article from WebMD that outlines a case in which a radiologist was sued by a patient for "increasing her fear of cancer". The MD didn't initially diagnose cancer in the plantiff when she felt a small lump in her breast. The judge gave the jury the okay to award money for "noneconomic losses or injuries", including (apparently) the fear of cancer. The plantiff got $220K award.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/488865

The link is to an article emailed to me, so sorry if the link is a dud. Check out medscape.com.

dc

 

[JohnDO]

How awful. Site requires a login, I wish I could view the full text so I could get a grasp of what went on.

 

[aparecida]

It's free to register. It wasn't the radiologist who was sued, but the primary care practitioner. The patient is 32 and came in with a lump in her breast (larger than a pea, smaller than a marble). The PCP performed a needle biopsy that didn't show cancer, instructed her to return in 70 days if it didn't go away, she did, it hadn't gone away, two weeks later the PCP referred her for a mammogram, which turned out to be a moderately aggressive tumor.

The plaintiff is claiming psychological damages due to increased fear of recurrence or metastasis, due to the tumor having potentially doubled in size and consequently being potentially more dangerous due to the 92 day delay.

 

[Gerg]

The Biopsy showed up negative, and she had fear of cancer?

WTF???? The Physician's Insurance company should have fought it in court, but with publicity, ect., it may have been cheaper to settle.


As for a return visit if it didn't go away, I'm sure there are lots of possible explinations for a lumb besides cancer, especially if a biopsy shows up negative for cancer.

Man, if I ever run into this woman (or her damned lawyer).... FIVE ACROSS THE EYES.

 

[aparecida]

Um, no, she actually DID have cancer, it just didn't show on the initial needle biopsy. Hence there was a 90 day delay in diagnosing what was actually a semiaggressive cancer. Hence the lawsuit.

 

[Gerg]

Man, I'm a *******.


Still, FIVE ACROSS THE EYES.

Does she want her PCP to quit working, leaving herself, and countless others without access to a doctor?

Keep in mind that the PCP did follow up, and she was diagnosed.

 

[MadameLULU]

It's free to register. It wasn't the radiologist who was sued, but the primary care practitioner. The patient is 32 and came in with a lump in her breast (larger than a pea, smaller than a marble). The PCP performed a needle biopsy that didn't show cancer, instructed her to return in 70 days if it didn't go away, she did, it hadn't gone away, two weeks later the PCP referred her for a mammogram, which turned out to be a moderately aggressive tumor.

The plaintiff is claiming psychological damages due to increased fear of recurrence or metastasis, due to the tumor having potentially doubled in size and consequently being potentially more dangerous due to the 92 day delay.

What's the proper protocol when a PCP feels a lump? Is it a mammogram or needle biopsy? Anyone know?

 

[delchrys]

some days i hate this place

 

[indo]

Man, if I ever run into this woman (or her damned lawyer).... FIVE ACROSS THE EYES.

eye scrape??? nice move!

 

[Gerg]

What's the proper protocol when a PCP feels a lump? Is it a mammogram or needle biopsy? Anyone know?

Someone with more knowledge correct me if I'm wrong. Please, I'm mostly making conclusions from very limited experience.

Mammograms are good at showing dense tissue. As such, in order to identify something as a new growth, you need previous mammograms to go off of, a baseline to compare to.

If there's a spot on this one, and no spot there in the one from 3 years ago, we oughtta be concerned.

A biopsy takes the cells, and tries to grow them, or does some other type of testing to determine if the cells are cancerous, which means they just grow grow grow!

It seems to me that a biopsy would be 1) more invasive and 2) more accurate at finding cancer than a mammogram.

We've already determined that there is a new growth (from a manual exam), what do we need the mammogram for?

Biopsy and see if it is a cancer! Oh, it came back negative, hmm.. well if it was an active cancer then it should show something on the biopsy.

Unless the PCP had a mammogram done after the 1st one for a baseline, and could identifty new growths on the one in 70 days.

I'm only a student, but I can't see how anybody can find fault in the physican in question for not being concerned after a negative biopsy. Keep in mind that he didn't dismiss it totally, and rechecked his patient. I'm sure there are lots of possible explinations for what it was that do not involve cancer. Many of which would be inconsequential in the end, and would go away after 50 days or so.

I see the situation above like going in complaining of chest pains, them doing a cardiac enzymes on you, finding nothing abnormal. Then sending you home, after finding out that you at pizza and beer for dinner, and telling you to get an OTC antacid.

Indo- I'm not sure what an eye scrape is. I'm just recommending a good backhand.

 

[bigdan]

Aparecida -

Good call. My bad on the misinformation.

dc