What happens when the patient has not been informed that their imaging has revealed a potentially life-threatening condition?
Take the case of a forty-four year old Tampa, Florida Marine combat veteran, and his thirty five year old wife, who recently sued the United States in a Florida federal court, for negligence and loss of consortium, claiming that the doctors at the Veterans Hospital failed to inform the husband of a lesion on his kidney, which turned out to be cancerous. The couple are seeking $20 million in damages for the plaintiff, and $10 million for his wife, for past and future medical expenses and loss of consortium.
In September 2011, the plaintiff visited the Veterans Hospital because he was experiencing pain in his abdomen. The hospital conducted a CT scan where doctors found a potentially cancerous lesion on the his right kidney, according to the lawsuit. An internal medical report prepared by a staff radiologist noted that the lesion “does not represent a simple cyst,” and recommended further testing for malignancy. However, the plaintiff was not informed of the lesion, and he received no follow-up evaluation or treatment for his lesion.
Five years later, in August of 2016, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident. Upon a visit to the same hospital for treatment of injuries sustained during the accident, a scan was conducted, which revealed the presence of the lesion. The plaintiff had surgery during which his tumor was removed, along with a part of his kidney.
On or about November 25, 2016, hospital officials met with the plaintiff and informed him that the hospital had previously “missed an opportunity” to refer him to a urologist for treatment of the lesion after his hospital visit 5 years prior. The plaintiffs claim that a comparison of the scans show that since its original discovery in 2011, the lesion had grown approximately 4 centimeters and was triple its original size.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, claiming that because of the delayed diagnosis, the plaintiff husband’s surgery and complications were more severe than they would have been five years prior, his life expectancy was reduced, and the couple suffered a loss of income. The plaintiff wife also claimed that she suffered the loss of her husband’s “companionship, society, love, affection and solace and will continue to do so in the future.”
The Department of Veterans Affair has denied the claims, saying that “a comprehensive investigation and review” found that there was “no injury as a result of a negligent act, omission or breach of duty attributable to the VA.”
