Misread mammogram

Text Size

Share this page on any of these social networking sites:
Share this page on any of these social networking sites: LinkedIn

 

Law Reporter Products

  • Abstract Sets
  • Court Documents
  • Injury Collections

Get More Info »

Search the Exchange »

Case in Point

January 24, 2012

Misread mammogram 

Suit alleged that a radiologist and her group were liable for failing to detect a woman’s breast cancer. Had she received an earlier diagnosis, the plaintiff claimed, her disease would have been curable. The jury awarded $2.65 million. Doe v. Roe Radiologist.

Doe, 52, underwent a screening mammogram, which radiologist Roe interpreted as normal. After a second mammogram a year later, Doe received an abnormal report. This led to additional tests and a subsequent diagnosis of Stage III breast cancer that had spread to nine lymph nodes. Doe required chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, and hormone treatment and now has a 35 percent chance of surviving ten years.

Doe sued Roe and her group, alleging she had misread the first mammogram. The plaintiff claimed that this test showed a 2.5-cm lesion, which grew to 8 cm the following year. Had she received an earlier diagnosis, the plaintiff asserted, her disease would have been curable. Suit did not claim lost income.

The jury awarded $2.65 million. Posttrial motions are pending.

Citation: Doe v. Roe Radiologist, Confidential Dkt. No. (Va., Fairfax Co. Cir. Nov. 10, 2011).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member William E. Artz, Arlington, Virginia.


The American Association for Justice
777 6th Street, NW, Ste 200 • Washington, DC  20001 • 800.424.2725 or 202.965.3500

© 2014 AAJ