Case Result

$1.9M

Medical Malpractice

Trial Verdict

Fairfax, VA

Case results are sourced directly from attorney websites by Injuria.ai's data infrastructure, which actively monitors 22,000+ personal injury law firms. They are not results obtained by ThatCarHitMe.com. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Case Details

Jury verdict for plaintiff in lung cancer case. The plaintiff is a 70-year-old man with a history of melanoma. His dermatologist ordered periodic chest imaging studies to conduct surveillance for possible metastasis of the melanoma. On Aug. 1, 2006, a chest CT scan ordered by the dermatologist was interpreted by the defendant radiologist. The radiologist reported back to the dermatologist that there were no findings of malignancy, but he did see evidence of prior asbestos exposure. Plaintiff had many pleural plaques (benign lesions) from asbestos exposure in his lungs. Plaintiff’s expert radiologists testified that the defendant should have interpreted this film as raising high concern for malignancy since a nodule in the lower lobe of the left lung had shown significant interval change in size and shape from a prior CT scan done in 2003 and was not a pleural plaque. The CT scan in 2006 did not show enlarged lymph nodes and, therefore, the plaintiff was a clinical Stage I lung cancer patient at the time. The cancer was diagnosed 28 months later via a CT angiogram ordered for possible peripheral vascular disease. At that time, plaintiff was determined to have Stage III-A lung cancer because the cancer had spread to lymph nodes.

Additional Notes

Experts for plaintiff testified that there was an 80 to 90 percent chance of cure if the cancer had been diagnosed back in 2006, and the chance of cure decreased to 20 percent at the time of diagnosis in late 2008. The plaintiff responded well to chemotherapy and radiation therapy which improved his chance of cure to somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. The defense offered two arguments. First, the defendant’s radiology expert testified that it would have been reasonable and within the standard of care to interpret this cancerous nodule as a benign pleural plaque although it had a significantly different appearance than the other pleural plaques. A defense oncology expert testified that on the basis of doubling time analysis there would have been microscopic disease in the lymph nodes back in 2006 and, therefore, the delay in diagnosis did not change the stage of the cancer, the treatment regimen or the plaintiff’s outcome.

View Original Source