▶ Video explainer coming soon
The court ruled in favor of the doctor. His expert testified that following the radiologist's recommended timeline was within the accepted standard of care. The patient's expert argued testing should have happened within six months, partly citing her family history of colon cancer. But that expert didn't explain why colon cancer history would require closer breast cancer monitoring, or state that this was actually part of the required standard of care. Because the patient's expert didn't create a real factual dispute, the court upheld dismissal of the case against this doctor.
Merlinda Paglinawan saw an OB-GYN who referred her for a screening mammogram in December 2014. In April 2015, follow-up imaging was recommended. The doctor agreed with that recommendation. In May 2015, a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound came back mostly benign, but doctors suggested a follow-up ultrasound in six to twelve months. Paglinawan got a letter about this and confirmed she received it. She didn't see the doctor again until February 2016, when she reported breast pain and swelling. He immediately referred her to breast surgeons. In June 2016, she was diagnosed with stage two breast cancer and underwent a mastectomy and chemotherapy. She and her husband sued the doctor for medical malpractice.
In medical malpractice cases, a patient must show the doctor departed from accepted medical standards, and that this departure caused harm. The question here was whether the doctor's choice to follow the radiologist's six-to-twelve month follow-up recommendation, instead of ordering earlier testing, was a departure from that standard of care.
This case shows how important expert testimony is in malpractice claims. Courts look closely at whether an expert's opinion is backed by clear medical reasoning. A vague or unsupported claim, even from a qualified expert, may not be enough to keep a case alive in court.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.