According to the woman, who had a history of asthma, she complained to her PCP over nearly a four year period regarding her cough. She allegedly requested that her PCP refer her to a pulmonologist, which was not done because the PCP allegedly relied on her history of asthma in deciding on her diagnosis and treatment options…$1.5M Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Settlement For Delayed Diagnosis Of Lung Cancer In Smoker
She also claimed that a radiologist failed to diagnose a suspicious chest x-ray, which added to the delay in her lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.
By the time the woman’s non-small cell lung cancer was finally diagnosed, she did not have available to her treatment options other than palliative care.
The plaintiff reportedly presented expert opinions that (a) the defendant PCP ignored signs and symptoms of lung cancer in a patient with a known smoking history; (b) the plaintiff’s examinations were negative for symptoms supporting a diagnosis of asthma, to which the defendant PCP attributed her cough, shortness of breath, fatigue and chest pains; (c) the plaintiff should have been referred to pulmonology based on her symptoms and her request to be seen by a specialist; (d) the X-ray taken in November 2017 showed an abnormality that should have been identified by the radiologist defendant; (e) the cancer that was discovered in 2020 was in the same location as the missed abnormality in the 2017 X-ray; and (f) had the cancer been diagnosed in 2017, it would have been at an earlier stage more amenable to cure, would have allowed clean margins from a biopsy and prevented metastasis, and the plaintiff would more likely than not survive her cancer.
The defendants reportedly presented expert opinions that (a) the plaintiff’s symptoms were seasonal, intermittent and consistent with asthma and colds, and she did not meet the criteria for LDCT screening; (b) the X-ray image in November 2017 was normal, and the structures referenced by the plaintiff’s experts were part of the plaintiff’s normal vasculature and not lung disease; (c) the defendant PCP was entitled to rely on the defendant radiologist’s report that the lungs were “clean”; and (d) earlier diagnosis would not have resulted in a more favorable outcome, as the medications available at the time of the claimed missed diagnosis did not exist, and the plaintiff’s specific lung disease would not have been treatable by methods then available.