NJ suit for false negative biopsy

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.


Full Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 2, 2012
Reaction score
  • Wow
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 users
In my experience (N of 1), if the bx's reviewed were truly negative, then the pathologist is eventually dropped from the suit. Still a big headache thoguh. I wonder if the path in this case was employed by the GI or the hospital and that had something do with it? Not a law person.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is more a comment on the medical malpractice system in general, but how is it possible that physicians are expected to be 100% sensitive and specific? Hell, even the best lab tests spit out a false positive or false negative every once in a while, yet people don't go around suing the manufacturers of those tests (or do they?). I feel like if a physician is generally pretty good and the miss isn't a result of gross negligence (note, I'm not talking about folks like the VA pathologist who was signing out inebriated), there should be some leeway for a mistake every now and then. Yes, it sucks for the patient and the family who is affected, but it's ridiculous to expect humans (or any test for that matter) to be 100% sensitive or specific.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user