User login
In suing, the woman claimed that because she had a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, the physician also should have performed a laparoscopy and referred her to a gynecologic oncologist.
The physician argued that since the laboratory and imaging results were all normal, there was no indication to perform additional testing. She believed the abnormal Pap was probably a false-positive reading. Lastly, she maintained that the ovarian cancer was not present during the tests performed in 1998 and that it most likely developed 2 to 4 months prior to diagnosis.
The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.
In suing, the woman claimed that because she had a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, the physician also should have performed a laparoscopy and referred her to a gynecologic oncologist.
The physician argued that since the laboratory and imaging results were all normal, there was no indication to perform additional testing. She believed the abnormal Pap was probably a false-positive reading. Lastly, she maintained that the ovarian cancer was not present during the tests performed in 1998 and that it most likely developed 2 to 4 months prior to diagnosis.
The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.
In suing, the woman claimed that because she had a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, the physician also should have performed a laparoscopy and referred her to a gynecologic oncologist.
The physician argued that since the laboratory and imaging results were all normal, there was no indication to perform additional testing. She believed the abnormal Pap was probably a false-positive reading. Lastly, she maintained that the ovarian cancer was not present during the tests performed in 1998 and that it most likely developed 2 to 4 months prior to diagnosis.
The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.