Breast Cancer Malpractice |
|
Breast cancer diagnosis delay lawsuit settles for $450,0002004 Medical Malpractice Settlement Report One year delay in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer — surgeon failed to biopsy palpable mass. Pathologist misread cytology smear.The plaintiff is a 63 year old woman who was diagnosed with node positive breast cancer 7 years ago, in 1997. During the year prior to her diagnosis, she was evaluated twice by the defendant surgeon and once by the defendant pathologist for a persistent right breast lump. On each occasion, the defendants deviated from the accepted standard of care when they failed to take the appropriate steps to diagnose or rule out breast cancer. As a direct result, the plaintiff suffered a significant delay in the diagnosis and treatment of her breast cancer, allowing it to spread beyond her breast to an axillary lymph node. On 3/18/96, the plaintiff saw her gynecologist for an annual exam. She was then 55 years old, menopausal, and taking hormone replacement therapy. The gynecologist noted a palpable right breast mass in the 10 o'clock position. She was unable to aspirate fluid from the mass, and referred the plaintiff to the defendant surgeon. On 3/27/96, the defendant surgeon noted that he appreciated the worrisome area and believed that it was fibrocystic tissue, which was a little bit more pronounced than other areas of the breast. He referred the plaintiff to the defendant pathologist for fine needle aspiration of the area. On 3/27/96, the defendant pathologist reported that the specimen was negative for malignant cells, and revealed findings consistent with fibrocystic changes. The plaintiffs right breast mass persisted. Six months after the fine needle aspiration, on 9/25/96, the plaintiff returned to see her gynecologist who again noted the same right breast mass. She was unable to aspirate fluid, and again referred the plaintiff to the defendant surgeon. On 10/16/96, the defendant surgeon noted prominent breast tissue in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast that corresponded to the area palpated by the gynecologist. He indicated that he believed that this was normal and that no work-up was necessary. He further advised that the plaintiff could continue her hormone replacement therapy. On 3/5/97, the plaintiff returned again to her gynecologist who again noted the presence of the right breast mass. This time, the gynecologist referred the plaintiff to a different surgeon who stopped the hormone replacement therapy and scheduled an excisional biopsy of the mass. The biopsy revealed invasive ductal carcinoma with 1 of 11 axillary lymph nodes positive for cancer. After diagnosis, the plaintiff underwent both chemotherapy and radiation therapy. As of the time of settlement, the plaintiff has not had any recurrence of her breast cancer. The plaintiffs contention is that the defendant
surgeon rendered substandard care when he failed to reexamine the plaintiffs
right breast after the fine needle aspiration, when he failed to recommend
the discontinuation of the hormone replacement therapy until the diagnosis
of breast cancer was definitively ruled out, and when he failed to perform
an open excisional The defendants claim that their care was at all times within the accepted standard of care and that nothing done or omitted by them caused the plaintiffs cancer to worsen. Questions about a failure to diagnose and treat breast cancer?Do you have questions about a possible medical malpractice claim? Contact Us - There is no fee or cost to you to have your case evaluated by our qualified medical malpractice attorneys. Call 800-866-2889 to speak with an attorney today. Lubin & Meyer PC - Boston's Innovative Leader in Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Law Our medical malpractice lawyers are licensed to practice in:
Return to: Verdicts & Settlements case archive Return to: Lubin & Meyer home page
|
|
|
About the Firm | Attorneys | Verdicts & Settlements | Making A Difference | News & Resources | Contact Us © 2008 Lubin & Meyer PC.
The
innovative leader in medical malpractice and personal injury law. Attorneys licensed in Massachusetts
(MA), New Hampshire (NH) and Rhode Island (RI) Attorney Advertising: |
|||