This is all KINDA my point with that case - in gold standard medicine, rads would have been taken early on and the problem would have been identified quickly. In the REAL world, you frequently don't get to do that, so you need to be able to use the data you have to make good decisions. In this case, the information was there - right smack in the CBC. You didn't actually need imaging to arrive at a very short differential list.
(But it also brings up a pet peeve of mine about corporate medicine and policies. I think it's absurd that we require a radiologist - absolutely no offense intended - to interpret every placement radiograph. I'm perfectly capable of interpreting a feeding tube placement rad. Making the owner pay $100 for a radiologist to tell me it's in the esophagus and extending to whatever point I want is frustrating given how high costs have risen. But because somewhere once some clinician botched it now there's a policy effecting every owner whose pet gets an NE/NG tube. It's dumb. On the other hand, it protects my license when some DACVR signature says it's appropriately placed and I can play dumb and say "gee, I dunno, the radiologist said it was fine." So *shrug*)