Malpractice Case Alleging Physicians Failed To Diagnose Man's Prostate Cancer Settles For 2,500,000

Coordinating the patient care might literally make the difference between life and death. The participation of several doctors in the treatment of the patient includes the possibility that some physicians could have important information that should be communicated to the patient and to t he other physicians for appropriate follow up. Without it the patient could very well go on lacking appropriate and necessary treatment. The need for such communication is not necessarily negated simply because the patient fails to go back to any of the physicians. So in cases where a physician has information or reaches a conclusion that the patient should have immediate follow up or treatment it is critical for that physician to communicate that to the patient and possibly also at least the patient's primary care physician.

Consider the following reported case. A number of doctors had an opportunity to diagnose the man's prostate cancer before it spread A male patient went to his family doctor and reported having urinary problems. He was fifty-six at the time. The family doctor thought that the problems were not a result of cancer. Thus, the physician failed to order any diagnostic testing, for example a biopsy and failed to refer the individual to a urologist.

Ten months later the man consulted with a urologist who performed a digital examination on the prostate gland and ordered a PSA blood test. The individual then discovered that the urologist was not approved by his insurance and he went to a different urologist who was approved. The PSA test ordered by the first urologist came back and that urologist advised a biopsy. Unfortunately, that recommendation apparently did not get communicated to the PCP 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.

It was another two years before the patient’s prostate cancer was at long last diagnosed. The doctors treating the patient’s cancer concluded that he probably had only one to five years to live due to the cancer’s spread. The law firm that handled this claim reported that they were able to achieve a settlement during jury selection at trial in the amount of $2,500,000 on behalf of the patient.

As the claim reviewed above reveals, having more than one physician for the same issue may result in errors. The first mistake was not following the screening guidelines. This was a mistake committed by both the PCP as well as the second urologist. Additionally there was the failure of communication among the several doctors. If the patient had been able to stay with the first urologist he would have known that he might have cancer and that a follow up biopsy was recommended. If the other doctors would have agreed with that recommendation or would have passed this information to the patient if they had received it is unknown but then the error would have been entirely theirs.

By: J. Hernandez

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

Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney. To learn more about prostate cancer metastasis cases and metastic breast cancer visit the websites