Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: breast cancer

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Hi folks, i need your opinion on this case. Particularly your feelings about Dr. Adam s conduct. What is the case worth? You may email me privately if you
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi folks,
      i need your opinion on this case.
      Particularly your feelings about Dr. Adam's conduct.
      What is the case worth?
      You may email me privately if you wish.
      thanks,
      Amy

      Marsi was almost 42 years old when this began and married to Jay for almost
      20 years. They have 3 children, now ages 20, 18, & 16. In May of 2000 she
      decided to speak to a doctor (Lee Roner) about undergoing breast
      augmentation surgery. After the consult, Dr. Roner ordered a mammogram be performed
      before scheduling the surgery to ensure that there was no radiological
      abnormalities that would contra-indicate the breast implants. The report (interpreted
      by Drs. Adam & Mazzo) indicated a normal mammogram. In the days preceding
      the surgery, scheduled for September of 2000, Marsi felt a small lump in her
      breast which she reported to Dr. Roner. Dr. Roner examined the breast, noted
      the normal mammogram findings, and determined it appropriate to proceed with
      the surgery. He has settled his claim.




      In February of 2001, about 5 months after the breast implants were
      performed, Marsi noticed that the lump was getting more distinct. She reported it to
      her primary physician who promptly referred her for another mammogram
      (interpreted by Dr. Stein). That mammogram was read as abnormal and followed by a
      biopsy which confirmed the diagnosis of cancer. Ultimately the June 2000
      mammograms were reviewed.



      Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Elund will testify that the interpretation by Adam
      & Mazzo was a deviation from the standard of care. Even Dr. Stein, a local
      radiologist who reviewed the February films, testified in deposition that the
      abnormality was visible back in June and was suspicious for cancer.


      To make matters worse, Dr. Adam, during the litigation, sent an article to
      Dr. Elund that was a call for radiologists to boycott mammographers who
      testify against other mammographers. The judge has ruled that her conduct was an
      attempt to interfere with the proceedings and that the article is admissible
      in this case. Interesting is that Adami did not put her name on the envelope
      but rather the name of her boss, therein trying to hide the identity of the
      sender.


      After diagnosis, Marsi subsequently underwent a lumpectomy, followed by
      chemotherapy and, ultimately a bilateral mastectomy. At the time of her
      diagnosis, she had positive lymph nodes but no distant metastasis. Unfortunately,
      she has had two separate recurrences since the original diagnosis. All her
      treaters, and even the defense oncologists agree, her prognosis is less than 7%
      survival. She has an a tremendous amount of treatment that has thus far not
      been able to stop the disease.



      Experts on both sides agree that the most important prognostic indicator was
      lymph node involvement (even though we all agree she suffers from an
      aggressive form of breast cancer). With that in mind, all the experts also agree
      that, had the cancer not spread to the lymph nodes before she was diagnosed,
      Marsi would have had an 80-90% chance of cure. Without boring on details for
      now, the testimony by our expert was that, since Dr. Roner's exam in September
      revealed normal a normal axilla, there was a 70% likelihood that there was
      no spread to the lymph nodes at that time. Her treating oncologist also
      agrees with that and has agreed to offer video testimony for use at trial on that
      issue.

      The defense oncologist also agrees that when a normal axilla exam reveals no
      swelling, there is a 70% likelihood that there is no lymph node involvement
      but testified that it's irrelevant in this case because one was never done.
      (However, that expert, for whatever reason, had no idea that it indeed was
      done in September)
      How do you feel about that?

      Accordingly, no lymph node involvement meant 80-90% cure whereas she now
      has less than 7% of surviving. Do you believe this survival rate is directly
      related to the 8 month delay in diagnosis?
      thanks for your time and opinions.
      Amy






      Trial Consultants, Inc.

      11712 NW 5th Street
      Plantation, FL 33325



      President
      Amy Singer, Ph.D.
      Fort Lauderdale, FL
      (954) 370-1973_AmySinger@..._
      (mailto:AmySinger@...)
      eFAX: 954.337.0569


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jurydoctor@aol.com
      Would like to get your thoughts on this case. $5 for each opinion will be donated to the Schiff Liver Foundation. Thanks in advance, amy Statement of Facts
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Would like to get your thoughts on this case. $5 for each opinion will be
        donated to the Schiff Liver Foundation.
        Thanks in advance,
        amy

        Statement of Facts
        This is a medical malpractice action where it is alleged that the Defendant
        failed to diagnose breast cancer in a timely fashion. A baseline mammogram
        revealed an area of asymmetry which was investigated and for which an ultrasound
        guided biopsy was recommended to rule out cancer. It is alleged that the
        Defendant, Dr. Maria, fell beneath the acceptable standard of care by electing
        not to perform the biopsy which, all experts agree, would have been diagnostic
        for breast cancer, Ten (10) months before it was eventually diagnosed. It is
        also alleged that the delay in diagnosing and treating Plaintiff’s breast
        cancer caused and/or contributed to her decreased chance of surviving the disease.
        What held a 75% chance of survival if diagnosed in December 2001 now carried
        a 35% chance of survival once diagnosed in October 2002.

        Problems for the Plaintiff

        The plaintiff presented for a surgical consult on Two (2) days after the
        radiologist canceled the biopsy. She told the surgeon that she wanted the
        palpable mass (suspicious area) removed regardless of what the radiologist said and
        she was scheduled for the procedure. A few days later, after further
        consideration, she called the surgeon and canceled the biopsy. The surgeon was
        informed by the radiologist that the suspicious area was a cyst and he did not object
        to the cancellation or recommend anything other than follow up in Six (6)
        months. The surgeon has since settled and will be listed on the verdict form.
        We are now 2 1/2 years since diagnosis and the Plaintiff has not had the
        recurrence yet (however, statistically she will).

        Problems for Defendant:

        The palpable density was located in the area that is considered the most
        common for breast cancer to develop, i.e., upper outer quadrant of the breast
        which was "easy to biopsy" had the radiologist elected to do so. The radiologist
        didn't perform the ultrasound when she refused to do the biopsy or examine the
        Plaintiff's breast. An ultrasound technologist performed the study and the
        radiologist interpreted it then told the patient and the surgeon who later saw
        the patient that the biopsy was not needed.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Vicki Siedow
        No really recent info, but my mother was thoroughly examined on a Thursday, then admitted to the hospital for an unrelated surgery on Monday. During a routine
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          No really recent info, but my mother was thoroughly examined on a Thursday,
          then admitted to the hospital for an unrelated surgery on Monday. During a
          routine exam before surgery a lump was discovered, that was not noted a few
          days before. This was excised, but eventually led to her death. The
          original Dr. was a family friend, and was most thorough. I have to believe
          that the lump was caught very, very early.

          Now in this case:

          I think that the Plaintiff was dealing with the situation without the
          medical info she should have had, and I can understand why she both wanted
          the lump removed no matter what, and changed her mind, not aware of the real
          danger.

          The Defendant should have been much more thorough and made it much clearer
          to the Defendant what the dangers were. If the D had, most likely the P
          would have done more tests, or at least gone through with her planned
          surgery to remove the lump.

          There is no guarantee that an earlier detection would have made the
          difference, but statistically it would. I think that the D will prevail.
          The fear, regret, pain, trauma, etc. to her and her family would make the
          award a large one.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
          On Behalf Of Jurydoctor@...
          Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:46 PM
          To: legalinvestigation@yahoogroups.com;
          medical-legal-network@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com; LegalNurseConsulting@yahoogroups.com;
          Psy-CJ-Law@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [infoguys-list] breast cancer



          Would like to get your thoughts on this case. $5 for each opinion will be
          donated to the Schiff Liver Foundation.
          Thanks in advance,
          amy

          Statement of Facts
          This is a medical malpractice action where it is alleged that the Defendant
          failed to diagnose breast cancer in a timely fashion. A baseline mammogram
          revealed an area of asymmetry which was investigated and for which an
          ultrasound guided biopsy was recommended to rule out cancer. It is alleged
          that the Defendant, Dr. Maria, fell beneath the acceptable standard of care
          by electing not to perform the biopsy which, all experts agree, would have
          been diagnostic for breast cancer, Ten (10) months before it was eventually
          diagnosed. It is also alleged that the delay in diagnosing and treating
          Plaintiff’s breast cancer caused and/or contributed to her decreased chance
          of surviving the disease.
          What held a 75% chance of survival if diagnosed in December 2001 now carried

          a 35% chance of survival once diagnosed in October 2002.

          Problems for the Plaintiff

          The plaintiff presented for a surgical consult on Two (2) days after the
          radiologist canceled the biopsy. She told the surgeon that she wanted the
          palpable mass (suspicious area) removed regardless of what the radiologist
          said and she was scheduled for the procedure. A few days later, after
          further consideration, she called the surgeon and canceled the biopsy. The
          surgeon was informed by the radiologist that the suspicious area was a cyst
          and he did not object to the cancellation or recommend anything other than
          follow up in Six (6) months. The surgeon has since settled and will be
          listed on the verdict form.
          We are now 2 1/2 years since diagnosis and the Plaintiff has not had the
          recurrence yet (however, statistically she will).

          Problems for Defendant:

          The palpable density was located in the area that is considered the most
          common for breast cancer to develop, i.e., upper outer quadrant of the
          breast which was "easy to biopsy" had the radiologist elected to do so. The
          radiologist didn't perform the ultrasound when she refused to do the biopsy
          or examine the Plaintiff's breast. An ultrasound technologist performed the
          study and the radiologist interpreted it then told the patient and the
          surgeon who later saw the patient that the biopsy was not needed.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give
          underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
          Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/aQSolB/TM
          -

          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005
        • CHRISINAD@AOL.COM
          Due Diligence I believe the medical profession has an obligation of Due Diligence. many people are in denial when they first learn of an abnormal test... My
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Due Diligence

            I believe the medical profession has an obligation of Due Diligence.

            many people are in denial when they first learn of an abnormal test... My
            question did anyone even attempt to follow up? did they ever try to contact
            her? I don't feel the plaintiff was informed completely of the ramifications .
            If not informed I would find for plaintiff.

            I have an HMO Kaiser in Ca. While..... I do feel they offer exceptional
            care if you have anything come back abnormal they will hound you to death until
            you talk to them or make an appointment. AND I do mean hound your butt
            .... BTW...damn annoying at times! But that is Due Diligence. That is the
            quality of care of an HMO I would expect private insurance to be better.

            Defendant showed gross negligence.... by not contacting the plaintiff to
            explain the need for additional tests.

            First do no harm... if you don't inform the harm is done.


            JMHO

            By the way breast cancer runs in families and breast cancer if not just a
            woman's disease. If you have breast cancer in your family please start having
            yearly mammogram's at 21 and have an extra mammogram every year after the age
            of 30

            Would like to get your thoughts on this case. $5 for each opinion will be
            donated to the Liver Foundation.
            Thanks in advance,
            amy

            Statement of Facts
            This is a medical malpractice action where it is alleged that the Defendant
            failed to diagnose breast cancer in a timely fashion. A baseline mammogram
            revealed an area of asymmetry which was investigated and for which an
            ultrasound
            guided biopsy was recommended to rule out cancer. It is alleged that the
            Defendant, Dr. Maria, fell beneath the acceptable standard of care by
            electing
            not to perform the biopsy which, all experts agree, would have been
            diagnostic
            for breast cancer, Ten (10) months before it was eventually diagnosed. It
            is
            also alleged that the delay in diagnosing and treating Plaintiff’s breast
            cancer caused and/or contributed to her decreased chance of surviving the
            disease.
            What held a 75% chance of survival if diagnosed in December 2001 now carried
            a 35% chance of survival once diagnosed in October 2002.

            Problems for the Plaintiff

            The plaintiff presented for a surgical consult on Two (2) days after the
            radiologist canceled the biopsy. She told the surgeon that she wanted the
            palpable mass (suspicious area) removed regardless of what the radiologist
            said and
            she was scheduled for the procedure. A few days later, after further
            consideration, she called the surgeon and canceled the biopsy. The surgeon
            was
            informed by the radiologist that the suspicious area was a cyst and he did
            not object
            to the cancellation or recommend anything other than follow up in Six (6)
            months. The surgeon has since settled and will be listed on the verdict
            form.
            We are now 2 1/2 years since diagnosis and the Plaintiff has not had the
            recurrence yet (however, statistically she will).

            Problems for Defendant:

            The palpable density was located in the area that is considered the most
            common for breast cancer to develop, i.e., upper outer quadrant of the
            breast
            which was "easy to biopsy" had the radiologist elected to do so. The
            radiologist
            didn't perform the ultrasound when she refused to do the biopsy or examine
            the
            Plaintiff's breast. An ultrasound technologist performed the study and the
            radiologist interpreted it then told the patient and the surgeon who later
            saw
            the patient that the biopsy was not needed.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]












            Chrisina DenBaugh, CEO
            www.Adoption-Free-Search.org
            Emergency Medical Locators for Adoptee's
            "Dedicated to adoptee's whose lives are imperiled by medical crisis"



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • adstorm_a
            No really recent info, but my mother was thoroughly examined on a Thursday, then admitted to the hospital for an unrelated surgery on Monday. During a routine
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 22, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              No really recent info, but my mother was thoroughly examined on a
              Thursday,
              then admitted to the hospital for an unrelated surgery on Monday.
              During a
              routine exam before surgery a lump was discovered, that was not
              noted a few
              days before. This was excised, but eventually led to her death. The
              original Dr. was a family friend, and was most thorough. I have to
              believe
              that the lump was caught very, very early.

              Now in this case:

              I think that the Plaintiff was dealing with the situation without the
              medical info she should have had, and I can understand why she both
              wanted
              the lump removed no matter what, and changed her mind, not aware of
              the real
              danger.

              The Defendant should have been much more thorough and made it much
              clearer
              to the Defendant what the dangers were. If the D had, most likely
              the P
              would have done more tests, or at least gone through with her planned
              surgery to remove the lump.

              There is no guarantee that an earlier detection would have made the
              difference, but statistically it would. I think that the D will
              prevail.
              The fear, regret, pain, trauma, etc. to her and her family would
              make the
              award a large one.

              http://www.yahoo.com
            • Vicki Siedow
              Well, I did that one too quickly, and with too many interruptions. See below for the corrections. Vicki Siedow Siedow & Associates Investigations & Custom
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 22, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, I did that one too quickly, and with too many interruptions. See below
                for the corrections.


                Vicki Siedow
                Siedow & Associates Investigations
                & Custom Legal Support Services
                2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
                La Crescenta (Los Angeles area), CA 91214
                818-242-0130
                800-448-6431
                818-688-3295 fax
                Siedow@...
                http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
                CA Lic. PI #22852
                Member NCISS
                Need economical legal help?
                http://AreYouProtectedYet.com


                -----Original Message-----
                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
                Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:38 PM
                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] breast cancer



                No really recent info, but my mother was thoroughly examined on a Thursday,
                then admitted to the hospital for an unrelated surgery on Monday. During a
                routine exam before surgery a lump was discovered, that was not noted a few
                days before. This was excised, but eventually led to her death. The
                original Dr. was a family friend, and was most thorough. I have to believe
                that the lump was caught very, very early.

                Now in this case:

                I think that the Plaintiff was dealing with the situation without the
                medical info she should have had, and I can understand why she both wanted
                the lump removed no matter what, and changed her mind, not aware of the real
                danger.

                The Defendant should have been much more thorough and made it much clearer
                to the Plaintiff what the dangers were. If the D had made the dangers
                clear, most likely the P would have done more tests, or at least gone
                through with her planned surgery to remove the lump.

                There is no guarantee that an earlier detection would have made the
                difference, but statistically it would. I think that the Plaintiff will
                prevail.
                The fear, regret, pain, trauma, etc. to her and her family would make the
                award a large one.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                On Behalf Of Jurydoctor@...
                Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:46 PM
                To: legalinvestigation@yahoogroups.com;
                medical-legal-network@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com; LegalNurseConsulting@yahoogroups.com;
                Psy-CJ-Law@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [infoguys-list] breast cancer



                Would like to get your thoughts on this case. $5 for each opinion will be
                donated to the Schiff Liver Foundation.
                Thanks in advance,
                amy

                Statement of Facts
                This is a medical malpractice action where it is alleged that the Defendant
                failed to diagnose breast cancer in a timely fashion. A baseline mammogram
                revealed an area of asymmetry which was investigated and for which an
                ultrasound guided biopsy was recommended to rule out cancer. It is alleged
                that the Defendant, Dr. Maria, fell beneath the acceptable standard of care
                by electing not to perform the biopsy which, all experts agree, would have
                been diagnostic for breast cancer, Ten (10) months before it was eventually
                diagnosed. It is also alleged that the delay in diagnosing and treating
                Plaintiff’s breast cancer caused and/or contributed to her decreased chance
                of surviving the disease.
                What held a 75% chance of survival if diagnosed in December 2001 now carried

                a 35% chance of survival once diagnosed in October 2002.

                Problems for the Plaintiff

                The plaintiff presented for a surgical consult on Two (2) days after the
                radiologist canceled the biopsy. She told the surgeon that she wanted the
                palpable mass (suspicious area) removed regardless of what the radiologist
                said and she was scheduled for the procedure. A few days later, after
                further consideration, she called the surgeon and canceled the biopsy. The
                surgeon was informed by the radiologist that the suspicious area was a cyst
                and he did not object to the cancellation or recommend anything other than
                follow up in Six (6) months. The surgeon has since settled and will be
                listed on the verdict form.
                We are now 2 1/2 years since diagnosis and the Plaintiff has not had the
                recurrence yet (however, statistically she will).

                Problems for Defendant:

                The palpable density was located in the area that is considered the most
                common for breast cancer to develop, i.e., upper outer quadrant of the
                breast which was "easy to biopsy" had the radiologist elected to do so. The
                radiologist didn't perform the ultrasound when she refused to do the biopsy
                or examine the Plaintiff's breast. An ultrasound technologist performed the
                study and the radiologist interpreted it then told the patient and the
                surgeon who later saw the patient that the biopsy was not needed.


                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005
              • Jurydoctor@aol.com
                $20 donated to Korman breast cancer center for your opinion. As always, your responses are greatly appreciated. Amy This case involves Phyliss who is suing the
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 7, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  $20 donated to Korman breast cancer center for your opinion.
                  As always, your responses are greatly appreciated.
                  Amy





                  This case involves Phyliss who is suing the breast surgeon, radiologist and outpatient surgery center.
                  Phyliss is a CPA, divorced. Practices out of her house and does small business accounting.
                  She lives alone and has a very limited social life, although she is conscious of her looks. Years ago, she had a facelift.


                  Plaintiff was 65 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Non-palpable lesion. The suspicious area vaguely seen on routine mammogram.
                  Further studies were called for due to her dense breast tissue.

                  Ultrasound done clearly shows area in a different location than the mammogram. Ultrasound guided needle biopsy done. Pathology report comes back as cancer.


                  Gynocologist sends her to breast surgeon (Dr. Brettt). Phyliss brings him films from prior studies. His record shows that he reviewed mammogram and noted ultrasound, as well.
                  He schedules her for surgery at outpatient surgery center and says that he delivered all films that he had to center several days before surgery.

                  Center does not note what films came in. However, tech at the center says that whatever films came in were given to radiologist (Dr. Roger) for purpose of doing localization of the lesion so that Dr. Brett could remove it.

                  Dr Roger, the radiologist says that he did not know of prior ultrasound and, if anyone had mentioned it, he would not have been the one doing a localization because he does not do them using ultrasound.
                  His wife does. Radiologist says surgeon conferred with him on what to localize. Surgeon says no such discussion.

                  So, radiologist localizes a fairly large area above and to outside of nipple.
                  When doing that, patient asked why he was doing that area when she was told that area was at 3 oclock area.
                  He says because that's where he sees problem.

                  Dr Roger llocalizes the wrong area and surgeon then removes much more tissue than should have been taken out. Surgery report reads as if everything went fine.

                  When patient comes back a few days later, surgeon gets on the phone with pathologist and tells patient that there was no cancer in what he removed.



                  She switches docs and is referred to another surgeon. New radiologist reviews films (same ones as before) and does new ultrasound that shows same area as before is still there. Two months post screw up she has correct surgery with relatively small scar and much less breast tissue removed. Surgery was no big deal.

                  Case is not based on worsening of cancer. It is based on significant cosmetic deformity and need for undergoing another surgery and all the fear, concern and trauma that goes along with that.

                  It is now 7 years later and cPhyliss hos not gotten her breast defect repaired.

                  Three years later (2005) she was operated on the other breast for breast cancer (on outside near armpit- not visible from frontal views). Also, she has had rheumatoid arthritis for years that affects her right hand causing deformity in her fingers.

                  Medicare paid minimal amounts for surgery so there is no claim for medical expenses

                  Radiologist claims no one told him about ultrasound (which all agree was the best study that showed the problem and which was previously used to do biopsy that showed cancer). Surgeon says he gave all films and faxed reports to outpatient center before surgery. Also, claims that once radiologist marked an area, surgeon had to remove that area. Ultrasound is easier for radiologist and involves no radiation for patient.

                  The protocol for this type of thing states that all films must be at the center at least two days before. However, they have no record of just what films they received, or which films they gave back to the patient. The patient obviously got back all her films because she took them to the doctors who did the correct surgery.

                  Although there is spot on the record for the outpatient center to record the number of films that were given to the patient after the procedure, the form was left blank.

                  Plaintiff contends this case involves the lack of simple communication between well trained docs, some very poor record keeping and some probable additions to records months after. Had they discussed the patient's history for two minutes before acting, she would have undergone a successful and fairly simple (although stressful for any person) surgery and been left with a scar that follows the lower curve of the nipple. Instead, she was left with an obvious deformity with a chunck of missing tissue. Moreover, the injured breast is much smaller and does not point or hang in the same direction as the other one.

                  Your thoughts?

                  What would you award her (if anything)?




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • suesarkis@aol.com
                  Phyllis definitely has a case. I personally believe the damned surgeon screwed up big time. Ultrasound should have been relied upon for surgery. The
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 7, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Phyllis definitely has a case. I personally believe the damned surgeon
                    screwed up big time. Ultrasound should have been relied upon for surgery.

                    The density of the breast makes the ultrasound much more viable than the
                    mammogram. Density makes a mammogram more difficult to read because it is
                    more difficult to see a small lesion on mammogram or to palpate a definite
                    lump on physical exam. The denseness of the tissue thus makes it more likely
                    that a cancer might be missed. That is why the surgeon ordered the
                    ultrasound. The surgeon, who presumably has more experience with looking at the
                    combination of mammograms, physical exams, and ultrasounds is the ultimate
                    responsible party usually.

                    Just as the ultrasound guided the needle biopsy, so too should it have
                    guided the surgeon. If he really and truly delivered them, he should have
                    stopped everything in the OR when they weren't present.

                    Since the anesthesiologist reportedly does not localize off of ultrasounds,
                    common sense should dictate that the surgeon is not being truthful as
                    entire surgical teams are very familiar with each doctors' propensities,
                    habits, likes and dislikes. Whether they consulted or not prior to surgery is
                    truly irrelevant as the surgeon should have been able to determine
                    immediately, if not sooner, that the wrong area was exposed.

                    However, why the heck didn't she jump and scream when the surgeon entered
                    since she believed the wrong area was being attended to?

                    The surgeon's argument that he had to operate in the area so marked by the
                    radiologist wreaks out loud of bullshit. So let's see, if the radiologist
                    mistakingly marked the right breast instead of the left, the surgeon should
                    operate on the wrong breast having full knowledge just because the
                    radiologist so marked? I don't think so. Nowadays it is the surgeon who comes
                    into your room the night before surgery or counsels you prior to surgery, for
                    instance, and writes "this arm" on either left or right or similar words
                    for other regions to make certain their mark is in the right place.

                    Did Phyllis have the ultrasound given back to her which she presented to
                    the subsequent doctors? Not relevant but just curious.

                    Now, for damages. For starters I doubt that the breasts hanging in
                    different directions can be attributed to this surgery since the other breast was
                    subsequently operated on elsewhere. Whether visible or not from frontal
                    views, the fact still remains that the lymph nodes removed included breast
                    tissue and not just the armpit if it was breast cancer. Also, let's face
                    it, they both hang south due to gravity and age and bras are mandatory
                    regardless of size, shape, deformity, etc.

                    Taking into consideration her age, her lifestyle and the fact that she was
                    not a social butterfly, I would award 100k for damages and 400k for P&S.
                    I would hold the radiologist harmless as he did nothing outside of his
                    normal course and scope since he doesn't work with ultrasounds anyway and
                    everyone knows or should know that. Of the final award I would not hold the
                    outpatient center culpable at all because the surgeon should not have
                    proceeded without the ultrasound's presence.

                    I would then deduct 50% from the award holding Phyllis 50% culpable for
                    failing to protect her own body when she had an indication something was not
                    right. If she was placed under a general and you failed to mention that, I
                    would then only deduct 25% as it was still in her control to demand to
                    speak to the surgeon before being put under.

                    In other words, $250,000 if no general was administered and $375,000 if it
                    was.

                    By the way, where was the anesthesiologist during all of this?



                    Sincerely yours,
                    Sue
                    ________________________
                    Sue Sarkis
                    Sarkis Detective Agency

                    (est. 1976)
                    PI 6564
                    _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                    1346 Ethel Street
                    Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                    818-242-2505


                    "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"

                    If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
                    thank a military veteran


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
                    My daghter had breast implants. I have had many friends who have had implants. It is very important to some women. although this woman is older, she did have a
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 12, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My daghter had breast implants. I have had many friends who have had implants. It is very important to some women.
                      although this woman is older, she did have a face lift and therefore, her self esteem is tied into how she looks.
                      I am not going to judge her.. or call her vain. I respect her need to feel pretty and feminine.
                      I would award her $250,000
                      .
                      ______________________________
                      When I heard about christina Applegate having a double mascectomy.. I felt so sorry for her. I always gasp when I hear about someone having breast cancer.
                      I can only imagine the pain and suffering women go thru to live thru breast cancer. In some ways this is worse from a mental point of view.
                      Thank goodness she did not have her entire breast removed, but she went through a horrible ordeal.
                      $750,000

                      ___________________
                      I care about how I look. I am 62. Men don't whistle anymore when I go by a construction site, my body has changed. I am no longer the youthful girl
                      with the great figure.
                      But what I do have is not grotesque, it is just part of the natural occuring aging process.
                      I say give her $5000 a year for the rest of her life/ or until the age of 80.

                      ____________________
                      I am about to have a tummy tuck and lipo. I am 56 years old. I am divorced.
                      Give her 1 million. and take away the doctor's license.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.