$2.5 Million Settlement In Malpractice Case Alleging Physicians Didn't Dtect Man's Prostate Cancer For Years

Coordinating the care of a patient could literally make the difference between life and death. The participation of a number of doctors in the treatment of a patient means that some physicians may have essential information that needs to be communicated to the patient and to t he other doctors for important follow up. Without it the patient might go on not receiving appropriate and essential treatment. The need for such communication is not necessarily negated due to the fact the patient fails to go back to any of the doctors. It becomes more problematic, however, if the one physician who is on the right track ends up not communicating his or her suspicions and the other doctors are missing the signs and not ordering the appropriate tests.

Consider the following reported medical malpractice claim. A number of physicians had an opportunity to detect the man's prostate cancer when it was still in its early stages. A male patient went to his family doctor and reported having urinary problems. He was fifty-six at the time. The general practitioner concluded that the issues were not due to cancer although no testing was done to rule out cancer.

Ten months later the individual consulted with a urologist who performed a digital examination on the prostate gland and took a PSA blood test. The man then found out that this urologist was not covered under the patient's insurance and so the patient consulted with a second urologist.

The PSA test ordered by the first urologist came back and that urologist recommended a biopsy. However, that recommendation evidently was not related to the family doctor or the urologist approved by the insurance company. The second urologist decided that there were no abnormalities present with the prostate and that there was no evidence of cancer.

As a result the cancer went undiagnosed for two years by which point it had spread outside the prostate. By that time, the cancer had spread outside the prostate and was now advanced. Had the cancer been diagnosed when the patient initially informed his doctors that he was experiencing urinary problems, when he saw the first urologist, or even when he saw the second urologist, it would have still been contained in the prostate and, with treatment, the patient would have had roughly 97 percent chance of surviving the cancer. Since the cancer was already advanced , however, the patient was not expected to survive more than five years. The law firm that represented the patient published that the resulting medical malpractice lawsuit settled for $2.5 Million.

This claim thus shows two main types of failures. There was the failure on the part of the PCP and the second urologist to not follow the proper screening guidelines. The other error was one in communication. This occurred when there was a miscommunication of the findings, suspicions, and advice of the urologist who was outside the insurance network and the other doctors. Although there is no way to know if the PCP or the second urologist would have followed up on results of the PSA test from the first urologist or on that urologist’s suspicion and recommendation they at least would have had information and perspective they were missing.

By: J. Hernandez

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Joseph Hernandez is an attorney accepting cancer malpractice cases. To learn about prostate cancer and other cancer matters including breast cancer metastasis visit the websites