Cancer Malpractice Attorneys

Nassau County, NY

Lung Cancer Malpractice

 

Lung Cancer Case

This case involves personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff resulting from the Nassau medical malpractice misdiagnosis of lung cancer by the defendant doctor. After a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was transported to the defendant hospital on September 22nd, 2002. The emergency room records indicate that the plaintiff presented with complaints of chest wall pain from the automobile seatbelt, anxiousness and that she reported palpitations at the time of the accident. She had a history of hypertension, for which she was taking the medication Calan. Her blood pressure was recorded as 177/90 by the triage nurse. Subsequently while in the ER, the plaintiff’s blood pressure was recorded as 158/84 and 152/78. She did not voice any complaints of shortness of breath. On examination by the defendant ER physician, her respiratory effort was normal and auscultation was clear. She was referred for a chest x-ray to rule out pneumothorax, or the presence of air or gas in the pleural cavity resulting in the collapse of the lung. She was found to be in no acute distress and was discharged home and instructed to take Motrin, rest for two days, and follow up with her primary physician. The plaintiff followed such instructions and had no further contact with the defendants thereafter.

The September 22nd chest x-ray, consisting of two films, one P/A view, and one lateral view, was interpreted by the defendant doctor on September 22nd, 2002, and then read the following day by defendant radiologist. The defendant doctor ruled out pneumothorax. In his report dated September 23rd, 2002, the defendant radiologist also ruled out pneumothorax and also observed subsegmental atelectasis in the left upper lobe. He also found prominent pulmonary markings. There was no finding of any mass, infiltrate or lesion. There was no finding of an inflammatory process.

There is no indication in the record that the plaintiff was informed of any abnormal findings with respect to the chest x-ray taken on September 22nd, 2002 at the defendant hospital. There is no indication in the record of either the defendant doctor or the defendant radiologist, or any other medical provider referring the plaintiff for further testing in relation to the pulmonary findings. On the discharge instructions, the plaintiff was referred to her primary care physician or a specified internist for follow up. She was instructed to take Motrin. She was not referred for a CT Scan, MRI, or any other radiological testing. She was not referred to a radiologist, pulmonologist, or any other specialist. The plaintiff was not given a copy of her chest x-ray of September 22nd, 2002 until 2 ½ years later in February 2005, around the time of her diagnosis of lung cancer.

On February 7th, 2005, a chest x-ray was performed at Nassau hospital #1. As a result of those findings, she was referred for a CT Scan of the chest which was performed the following day, February 8th, 2005. The findings of the CT indicated a spiculated mass in the left upper lobe measuring 4.5 cm in greatest diameter, strongly suspicious for malignancy. There was also a finding of several small adjacent nodular densities, the largest measuring 1 cm. The radiologist noted that it was difficult to determine if these adjacent densities represented satellite lesions or were part of the larger mass. The right lung was found to be free of any masses or nodules. (The report was amended on February 24th, 2005 to add suspicion of a metastatic lesion in the spleen.) A bronchoscopy was performed by the pulmonologist on February 14th, 2005 and the pathology results of February 17th, 2005 indicated a finding of non small cell bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. A PET Scan performed on February 22nd, 2005 confirmed the CT Scan findings, and the radiologist noted a metastatic prevascular lymph node. The plaintiff was diagnosed at Stage IIIB/IV by the oncologist, who prescribed a treatment of Carboplatin and Gemzar. In August of 2005, she was prescribed Tarceva at 150 mg and experienced a severe rash on her face and the dosage was lowered to 100 mg. She remained on Tarceva until 2006.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with pleural effusion and on November 18th, 2005. She was admitted to a Manhattan hospital, where a thoroscopy was performed, which is a biopsy of the pleural fluid, and pleurodesis. The biopsy of the pleural fluid indicated metastatic adenocarcinoma, compatible with lung primary, involving fibrous tissue. The plaintiff remained hospitalized until November 22nd, 2005. She continued to treat with oncologist #1 and underwent CT Scans of the chest on April 7th and July 31st of 2006. The April 7th CT Scan indicated that the spiculated left upper lobe mass remained essentially stable in size (4.1 x 3.9 x 4.9 cm). The July 31st CT Scan revealed an enlargement of the mass, consistent with progression of the disease. Also, multiple new right pulmonary nodules were noted, consistent with progression of lung metastatic disease. On September 5th, 2006, the plaintiff presented to Nassau hospital #2, where she underwent a CT Scan of the brain which revealed signs of metastatic lesions. She was admitted to Nassau hospital #2 and remained hospitalized until September 9th, 2006. While admitted, the plaintiff underwent an MRI of the brain on September 11th, confirming the lesions found on the CT Scan, consistent with intracranial metastatic disease. The plaintiff underwent radiation treatments and an MRI of the brain was performed on October 2nd at Nassau hospital #2. Results indicated a considerable decrease in the lesions seen on the prior MRI of the brain. The plaintiff, under the care of the radiation oncologist, subsequently underwent stereotactic treatments at Nassau hospital #3. Plaintiff continues to treat with oncologist #1.

 

During the delay of diagnosis and treatment, the plaintiff suffered an increased staging of her cancer, cancer was allowed to grow, and metastasize. The plaintiff lost a substantial opportunity for more meaningful intervention during the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and the early portion of 2005, particularly with respect to survivability, survival rates and the opportunity to have been afforded more years of life. Survival in lung cancer is closely related to the stage of the disease and that survivability in non small cell bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is increased in the early stage. The departures from good and accepted medical care by the defendants during 2002 were a substantial contributing factor in the plaintiff’s lung cancer progressing to Stage IIIB/IV and metastasizing to the lymph nodes, brain and right lung, and that had a CT Scan, bronchoscopy and biopsy been performed in 2002, the cancer would have been diagnosed at an earlier stage. Since a CT Scan, bronchoscopy and biopsy was not timely performed following the chest x-ray of September 22nd, 2002, the plaintiff lost a substantial opportunity for surgical intervention, including a lobectomy.

 

The worsening and progression of the plaintiff’s lung cancer to Stage IIIB/IV eliminated the opportunity for surgical intervention, which could have been performed had the diagnosis of lung carcinoma been made in a timely manner at an earlier stage of the disease. These departures from good and accepted medical practice by the defendants resulted in a significant delay (approximately 2 years, 5 months)in the diagnosis of the plaintiff’s lung carcinoma, and were a substantial producing factor and the proximate cause of the progression and worsening of the plaintiff’s carcinoma. As a result of the defendants’ negligent conduct and departures from good and accepted medical practice the plaintiffs suffered the injuries complained of above and the plaintiff was deprived of a substantial possibility for a cure of her cancerous condition and for extended life expectancy.

 

The plaintiff underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, which continues. She had also undergone radiation treatments and is now faced with intra cranial metastatic disease, as well as metastatic cancer in the right lung. Concerning the chemotherapy, the plaintiff testified to losing her hair, fatigue and loss of appetite. She testified as to the harshness of the Tarceva and the severe rashes, including facial rashes, resulting from that treatment. The lesion present in the upper lobe in her left lung present on the September 22nd, 2002 chest X-ray corresponded to the mass in the upper lobe of the plaintiff’s left lung identified on the CT Scan on February 8th, 2005. Had a CT Scan of the left lung been timely obtained after the September 22nd, 2002 chest X-ray, there is a substantial probability that CT Scan would have been able to detect it and better indicate that there was neoplastic disease present at that time. Also, the lesion would have been visualized as a mass requiring further investigation to determine whether it was malignant, including bronchoscopy and/or biopsy.

 

The medical malpractice by defendants mentioned above was the complete cause of the subject left lung lesion not being examined in a timely fashion after the September 22nd, 2002 chest X-ray was performed. No biopsy of the left lung was done until February 2005. At that time, biopsy confirmed the presence of lung carcinoma. The medical negligence by the defendants was the cause of the delay in diagnosing the lung carcinoma through February 2005.

 

If you or a loved one have questions about the timeliness of a cancer diagnosis and have questions about the quality of the medical care you received please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos; cancer malpractice attorneys in New York and NYC including Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Long Island, and Queens for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.

 

 

 

Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
Call Us Toll Free
1.877. ASK 4 SAM