Articles Posted in Misdiagnosing Cancer

by

On March 21, 2007, Daniel Gapinski underwent neurosurgery at OSF St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Ill. The surgery was for resection of the brain mass in the pituitary area. The defendant, Dr. Neena Gujrati, was the pathologist who interpreted the tissue specimens. Dr. Gujrati concluded that the tissue specimen were benign meningioma, a tumor usually found in the membrane lining of the brain just inside of the skull or on the spinal cord. These tumors are usually slow growing and are 90% of the time found to be benign.

Gapinski, who was then age 42, received small doses of radiation in an attempt to debulk the benign tumor. He was able to return to work as a heavy equipment operator for 2 years working up to 14 hours per day. However, in late 2008, Gapinski began experiencing symptoms similar to those he experienced in 2007 before his surgery. Gapinski returned to St. Francis Medical Center and also went to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., for a second opinion. He eventually underwent a two-phase neurosurgery procedure in 2009 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The pathology from that surgery was read as renal cell carcinoma, indicating the presence of a kidney cancer that had metastasized to the brain.

Gapinski and his wife decided to return to Illinois for treatment at the University of Chicago Hospital. At the time of the transfer of his care to the University of Chicago, all of his medical records, including the original 2007 pathology slides prepared by Dr. Gujrati were evaluated. A pathologist at the University of Chicago diagnosed the tissues from 2007 as being consistent with renal cell carcinoma. Continue reading

by

Linda Lawson, 55, underwent a CT scan of her thoracic spine after she was experiencing leg and lower back pain. The scan was reported as being benign. Lawson’s symptoms continued and she had a lumbar CT scan 2 months later. The results of the CT were again reported by a second radiologist as being benign.

After her condition worsened, Lawson underwent an MRI, which showed a pelvic mass. She subsequently was diagnosed as having Stage IV non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which had spread to several lymph nodes and bones. She underwent aggressive inpatient treatment and is now in remission.

Lawson was a teacher earning about $40,000 annually and was unable to work for one year. She filed a lawsuit against Southwest Radiology, whose radiologist interpreted the first scan and the radiologist who read the second scan claiming that the radiologist chose not to timely diagnose her condition. Had she received an earlier diagnosis, Lawson argued she would have undergone less aggressive treatment on an outpatient basis.

Continue reading

by

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Daniel Hemminger sued defendants Jeffrey LeMay, M.D., and his medical practice for damages related to the death of Hemminger’s wife, Tina. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants chose not to diagnose and treat her cervical cancer in a timely fashion, which caused her death by lessening her chance of survival. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for directed verdict finding that Hemminger had failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Dr. LeMay’s negligence was the proximate cause of the woman’s death under a lost chance of survival theory. Hemminger took this appeal.

Tina Hemminger saw Dr. LeMay, an obstetrician/gynecologist, on June 23, 2000 complaining of abdominal pain and spotting. Dr. LeMay completed a pelvic examination, which showed that her cervix was abnormally large and firm. There was no biopsy ordered. Dr. LeMay did not order a microscopic examination of her cervix. About 6 months later, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Her cancer was Stage 3B, which has a 5-year survival rate of 32%. She died of metastatic cervical cancer on April 7, 2002.

Her husband sued Dr. LeMay for medical negligence claiming that he was negligent in choosing not to order tests that would have detected his wife’s cervical cancer in 2000. The lawsuit further alleged that had Dr. LeMay diagnosed the cancer in June 2000 rather than in December 2000, she would have had a significantly better chance of surviving the cancer.

Continue reading

by

Maria Lastra-Rico was 45 years old when she underwent a breast biopsy. A pathologist interpreted the test as showing invasive ductal carcinoma; she underwent a double mastectomy with lymph node resection and subsequent surgical reconstruction.

She later learned that she in fact had ductal carcinoma in situ, which is noninvasive ductal carcinoma.

Lastra-Rico sued the pathologist and the pathologists’ supervisor who provided a second opinion claiming liability for the misdiagnosis. Lastra-Rico then maintained that had the defendants performed a staining procedure to confirm and ensure the proper diagnosis, she would have undergone a lumpectomy and radiation and avoided the mastectomies altogether. The lawsuit did not claim lost income. After the jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $2,230,000.

Continue reading

by

A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed by Daniel R. Hemminger, who sued the defendants Jeffrey LeMay, M.D. and Sterling Rock Falls Clinic Ltd. for damages related to the death of his wife, Tina.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants, in choosing not to correctly diagnose and treat Tina’s cervical cancer in a timely manner, was the cause of her death by lessening her chance for survival. 

This is called the lost chance doctrine supported by the case of Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill.2d 95 (1997) in which the Illinois Supreme Court held that “to the extent a plaintiff’s chance of recovery or survival is lessened by the malpractice, he or she should be able to present evidence to a jury that the defendant’s malpractice, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, proximately caused the increased risk of harm or lost chance of recovery.”

In this case, the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict after the close of plaintiff’s case alleging that plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that Dr. LeMay’s negligence proximately caused Tina’s death under a lost chance of survival.  The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

by

The plaintiff in this case, Lee Ann Sharbono, filed a lawsuit claiming medical negligence against the defendant Dr. Mark Hilborn, a board-certified radiologist. In the lawsuit it was alleged that Dr. Hilborn had chosen not to timely diagnose Sharbono’s breast cancer.  After the trial, the jury found for Dr. Hilborn and against Sharbono.  She filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial and for rehearing, all of which the trial court denied. This appeal was taken.

In August 2006, Sharbono was diagnosed with breast cancer in her left breast.  It had spread to her nearby lymph nodes under her left arm. She underwent extensive treatment including a modified radical mastectomy of her left breast.

The lawsuit in this case arose out of a diagnosis that was made by Dr. Hilborn in November 2004.  Sharbono, who was then 39 years old, went to see her primary care physician because she was experiencing fatigue, weight gain, aches and pain.  The doctor ordered a screening mammogram. That mammogram and an ultrasound were claimed to have been misinterpreted.

Continue reading

by

A confidential settlement was reached wherein a 63-year-old woman’s misdiagnosed lung cancer led to her untimely death. The woman, identified only as Doe, underwent a CT scan while she was hospitalized. This showed a lung lesion that the interpreting radiologist reported as possible cancer. A hospitalist reported these findings to Doe’s primary care physician. 

The primary care physician referred Doe to a pulmonologist but did not tell her that cancer was suspected.  The hospital sent Doe’s CT scan to the pulmonologist, who reported to the primary care physician that part of the scan was missing. The primary care physician allegedly said that he would provide the missing film. However, there was no followup. The pulmonologist also chose not tell Doe that cancer was suspected when the two subsequently met.

Five years later, Doe developed shortness of breath and other ominous symptoms. Doe was diagnosed with having Stage IV lung cancer; she died two months later. Doe was survived by her husband and two adult children. Doe’s husband filed a lawsuit against the primary care physician and the pulmonologist claiming that these defendants chose not to follow up on the radiologist’s suspicion of lung cancer. The lawsuit did not claim any lost income.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury returned a verdict of $314,000 related to the death of John Alexander. Mr. Alexander was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2002. A CT scan in 2006 showed evidence of a recurrence of the bladder cancer. The CT was ordered by the defendant internist, Philip Kiley, M.D.

Dr. Kiley had requested that his staff forward the CT report by fax to the patient’s treating urologist. In addition, Dr. Kiley claimed that he advised Mr. Alexander to return to the neurologist for further treatment. However, the fax was never sent, and the Alexander family claimed there was never any instruction to follow up with the urologist in 2006. 

Dr. Jerrold Seckler, the urologist, did not learn of the cancer recurrence until a year later. Even with the recurrence of the cancer, Dr. Seckler chose not inform Mr. Alexander and did not initiate any treatment.

Continue reading

by

Joseph Farias, age 29, began treatment with the defendant internist, Yolanda Co, M.D., in February 2002. He came to the doctor with complaints of constipation for three years and rectal bleeding. Dr. Co performed a rectal exam and ordered a colonoscopy, which came back negative. There was no cause determined as to why Farias had rectal bleeding.

In October 2003, Farias returned to Dr. Co with new complaints of rectal bleeding. That visit was a cause of what became a medical malpractice lawsuit. This time Dr. Co did a digital rectal exam and diagnosed internal hemorrhoids. In Farias’s Cook County complaint, it was alleged that the internal hemorrhoids could not be diagnosed through digital examination unless the internal hemorrhoids were visualized outside the anus. The standard of care as contended required Dr. Co to perform an anoscopy to properly visualize the hemorrhoids. It was also asserted that should Dr. Co not have the facility to do the anoscopy,  she should have referred Farias to another physician such as a gastroenterologist. 

Dr. Co defended the case by saying that she did observe prolapsing internal hemorrhoids (protruding out of the rectum), even though her chart  stated only internal hemorrhoids. Dr. Co testified that the standard of care required a treating internist such as herself to grade and chart the severity of an internal hemorrhoid, but she admittedly didn’t do that in October 2003.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial judge’s ruling in a medical malpractice case because the judge ruled that the defendants had no right of reduction on the jury’s verdict.  

In this case, Charles Perkey, as administrator of the estate of Leanne Perkey (his wife), sued the doctors and hospital because of a delay in diagnosing Leanne’s pancreatic cancer in a timely manner. 

After a jury trial, the verdict, which included $310,000 for Leanne’s medical expenses, was not reduced when the trial judge refused the defendants’ motion to reduce the judgment under Section 2-1205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 

Continue reading