Medical Verdicts
PARENTS’ CLAIM Prompt treatment would have reduced or eliminated some of the effects of cerebral palsy. The birth hospital did not have pulmonary surfactant or nitric oxide with high-frequency jet-ventilation therapy that would have improved the newborn’s respiration. The baby should have been immediately transferred to a facility where this treatment was available. The parents requested a transfer, but it was denied.
DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The child was given every appropriate method of treatment; she was adequately oxygenated. Nitric oxide was not FDA-approved for use in this case. The child’s disabilities were a result of her prematurity.
VERDICT A New York defense verdict was returned.
Benign findings after radiation had started
After a 45-year-old woman found a lump in her right breast in October 2006, a pathologist interpreted biopsy results as ductal carcinoma in situ. A general surgeon and an oncologist both recommended partial mastectomy and lymphadenectomy with radiotherapy and possible tamoxifen treatment. Surgery was performed in November 2006, and radiation treatment began in early December.
The oncologist required that slides be reviewed by pathologists at her cancer center before determining if tamoxifen was appropriate. The pathology report indicated that the patient did not have breast cancer, but had atypical ductal hyperplasia. When the patient learned she did not have cancer, she immediately halted radiation therapy, but had already suffered radiation burns on her breast.
PATIENT’S CLAIM The oncologist was notified that the patient did not have cancer in mid-December, but did not tell the patient until January, when they met to discuss tamoxifen therapy. The patient is now at risk for sarcoma, changes in breast tissue, and rib fractures because of radiation therapy. Partial mastectomy and lymphadenectomy are proper treatment for atypical ductal hyperplasia, but radiation therapy is not. The patient is depressed and anxious.
DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The oncologist claimed the patient was not informed of the change in diagnosis because radiation treatment is acceptable treatment for atypical ductal hyperplasia; there was no reason for treatment to be stopped.
The pathologist stated that cell variation between ductal carcinoma and atypical ductal hyperplasia is so slight that two pathologists could reach different conclusions reading the same slide. His interpretation was appropriate. The patient was not clinically depressed; she never sought treatment.
VERDICT A $150,000 Pennsylvania verdict was returned against the oncologist. A defense verdict was returned for the pathologist.
These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. Tell us what you think.
