Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 48)


In fact, however, the mammography completed in November of 1997 demon- strated an early neoplasm of the left breast which, in conformity with the standards of care, should have been diagnosed, with the Plaintiff promptly referred for treat- ment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was advised that she had absolutely nothing to worry about as there was no cancer present.


The Plaintiff was again referred by her


primary care physician for additional mammography on September 22, 1999. At that time, the mammography was in- terpreted as “suspicious,” and additional views were performed on September 24, 1999. At that time, a mass in the lower outer quadrant of the left breast was di- agnosed, which was consistent with a malignant neoplasm. Additionally, an enlarged lymph node was present in the left axilla. Plaintiff was referred to a sur- geon, a biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of breast cancer and the Plaintiff under- went a mastectomy with lymph node dissection, followed by adjuvant therapy in February of 2000. At the time of the surgery, the pathology revealed not only cancer in the primary site but 8 of 22 nodes were involved as well. The Plaintiff alleged that had the De- fendants conformed with the standards of care, a diagnosis of cancer in the left breast would have been made in November of 1997. At that time, a simple lumpectomy


would have been completed and the Plain- tiff would have avoided local extension and/or distant metastasis. However, as the direct and proximate result of the negli- gence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff ’s cancer was belatedly diagnosed in 1999, which left her with a terminal prognosis. The Defendants denied all allegations of negligence, contending that the inter- pretation of the November, 1997 mammograms were proper and no addi- tional studies were required. Moreover, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff ’s failure to return for repeat mammography within one year (instead of 22 months) was contributory negli- gence which worsened her prognosis.


Injuries and Damages: Terminal Breast Cancer


Expert Witnesses: Plaintiff: John G. Pearce, M.D. Emmaus, PA, Radiology


Defendant: Anonymous Settlement: $500,000.00 Adjustor: Anonymous Insurance Company: Anonymous


Special Remarks: Case settled prior to fil- ing


Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Jonathan Schochor* and Kerry D. Staton*


Defense Counsel: Anonymous * MTLA Members


______


Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Anonymous Defen- dant Hospital (#27)


Court/ Docket #: N/A - Settled prior to filing


Facts and Allegations of Liability: This case involves a 73-year-old, married man who presented to the Defendant Hospi- tal on April 16, 1999 after being diagnosed with interstitial pulmonary fi- brosis at another institution in February of 1999. Dr. “A” recommended a high resolution CT Scan as well as a lung bi- opsy in order to establish the exact histology of the fibrosis in order to deter- mine the course of treatment. On April 22, 1999, the Plaintiffs’ De- cedent had a CT, which was remarkable for an “indeterminate lung nodule” mea- suring 1 cm in the left lower lobe. As previously discussed by Dr. “A”, the Plain- tiffs’ Decedent was then referred to Dr. “B” for a May 18, 1999 lung biopsy. The biopsy pathology showed “At least in-situ squamous cell carcinoma. Carcinoma ex- tends to the margin.”


A total of eight doctors combined to


misread, misinterpret and, ultimately, not provide Decedent with adequate care so that, by the time the November 21, 2000 biopsy showed moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, it was too late. A wedge resection was planned and sched- uled for January 18, 2001. However, having many doubts about the care he had received, the Plaintiffs’ Decedent sought the opinion of the physicians at an out- of-state cancer center. Those physicians believed that the


Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s disease was not sur- gically resectable secondary to its advanced stage and that he should undergo a com- bined modality therapy of chemo and radiation. Unfortunately, as the Plaintiffs’ Decedent suffered with an underlying pulmonary fibrosis, the radiation proved to be too much and the Plaintiffs’ Dece- dent died on November 1, 2001. The cause of death is listed as pulmonary fi- brosis.


Injuries and Damages: Death


Expert Witnesses: Plaintiff: Lawrence Boxt, M.D., Radiol-


(Continued on page 52) 50 Trial Reporter Spring 2003


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64