- so did she have surgery or not? am i missing something?
There is a type of breast cancer which gets into the
ducts and spreads rapidly. Is this the type she had.
Also, what happened to the follow up in 6 months?
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
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.
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
yearly mammogram's at 21 and have an extra mammogram every year after the
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
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]