The accurate and timely diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s medical condition is the goal of modern medical care. Unfortunately, there are instances where a medical provider fails to recognize a set of symptoms that indicates a serious condition, leading to what is known as ‘Failure to Diagnose’. This form of medical malpractice can have severe, sometimes life-altering consequences for patients including increasing the risk of cancer or decreased survival chances. Below are ten such real-world Florida case examples, which emphasize the need for diligence in medical diagnostics.
1. Negligent Misdiagnosis of Lung Cancer
In Holy Cross Hosp., Inc. v. Marrone, 816 So. 2d 1113, Eleanore Marrone filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Holy Cross Hospital and Dr. Salvatore DiGiorgi, alleging negligent misdiagnosis of her lung cancer. Marrone claimed that Dr. DiGiorgi and another radiologist failed to identify a visible tumor on her chest x-rays in 1997 and 1998. This delay in diagnosis allegedly allowed the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage, reducing her survival rate from 60–80% to 35–40%.
Expert testimony played a pivotal role in the case. Dr. Gerald Sokol testified that Dr. DiGiorgi breached the standard of care by interpreting the x-rays himself instead of referring them to a specialist. Dr. Sokol also argued that the delayed diagnosis caused the cancer to spread to Marrone’s lymph nodes, worsening her prognosis. However, causation was contested, with Dr. DiGiorgi asserting that earlier detection would not have changed the treatment or outcome. The jury awarded Eleanore $900,000.00.
Appellate Court Decision
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the $900,000.00 jury verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed the trial court to evaluate the admissibility of Dr. Sokol’s expert testimony. If deemed admissible, the original jury verdict would be reinstated. If not, a new trial would be required. The trial court was also directed to determine which portions of Dr. Sokol’s testimony could be excluded if he were to testify again.
Key Takeaways
This case underscores the complexities of medical malpractice litigation, particularly:
– The critical role of expert testimony in establishing causation and standard of care.
– The importance of adhering to evidentiary standards for expert witnesses.
– The challenges of proving that a delayed diagnosis directly impacted a patient’s prognosis.
2. Negligent Misdiagnosis of Cancer Leads to Leg Amputation
In Wilhelm v. Traynor, 434 So. 2d 1011, Wilhelm sought treatment from Dr. Hynick for an ulcer on his knee. A biopsy, reviewed by Dr. Traynor, incorrectly determined the lesion was not cancerous. Over the next year, Wilhelm experienced worsening symptoms, including growths and nodules on his knee. On March 8, 1979, Dr. Sawyer diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and recommended radiation treatment. Despite initial improvement, Wilhelm’s condition deteriorated, and by December 1979, his leg required amputation due to complications, including a staph infection.
Wilhelm filed his lawsuit on June 21, 1981, alleging that the delayed diagnosis allowed the cancer to progress, ultimately resulting in the loss of his leg.
Statute of Limitations
The defendants argued that Wilhelm’s claim was barred by Florida’s two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases. The court ruled that the limitations period began on March 8, 1979, when Wilhelm was informed of the cancer diagnosis. Although Wilhelm argued that the statute should be tolled until he became aware of the full extent of his injury (the amputation), the court held that the discovery of the cancer diagnosis was sufficient to trigger the limitations period.
Appellate Court Decision
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Wilhelm failed to file his claim within the two-year window. The court also found that Orlando General Hospital could not be held liable, as its vicarious liability was tied to Dr. Traynor, who was exonerated.
Key Takeaways
This case underscores several important points for medical malpractice claims in Florida:
– Discovery Rule: The statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff becomes aware of the negligent act or injury, not when the full extent of harm is realized.
– Timely Action: Filing a claim within the statutory period is critical, even if the ultimate consequences of the negligence are not yet apparent.
– Precedential Impact: The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to Florida’s statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases.
3. Negligent Failure to Diagnose Pregnancy and Uterine Abnormality
In Elder v. Farulla, 768 So. 2d 1152, Mary Elder sought treatment from her family physician, Dr. Norton, and her gynecologist, Dr. Farulla, for symptoms consistent with pregnancy. Despite these symptoms, neither physician ordered a pregnancy test until a pelvic sonogram revealed that Elder was seven months pregnant. Shortly after the diagnosis, Elder experienced a premature rupture of membranes, leading to Ethan’s premature birth. Expert testimony established that Ethan’s severe disabilities could have been avoided if he had remained in utero for an additional three to four weeks.
Elder alleged that the physicians’ failure to diagnose her pregnancy and uterine abnormality deprived her of necessary prenatal care, which contributed to the premature birth and Ethan’s resulting disabilities.
Trial Court Proceedings
At trial, Elder presented expert testimony from Dr. Wade, who testified that the premature rupture of membranes was caused by a combination of factors, including the lack of prenatal care and an undiagnosed bicornate uterus. However, Dr. Wade admitted that up to 80% of premature ruptures are unexplained and could not testify with certainty as to the cause of Elder’s rupture.
The defendants presented two causation witnesses, both of whom testified that the cause of the rupture could not be determined. Despite a jury verdict in favor of Elder, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that Elder’s evidence on causation was insufficient under Florida law, which requires proof that the defendant’s negligence “more likely than not” caused the injury.
Appellate Court Decision
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Elder to one causation witness while allowing the defendants two causation witnesses. The appellate court emphasized that medical malpractice cases are inherently expert-driven and that Elder should have been allowed to present a causation witness for each defendant, particularly given their differing medical specialties.
The court also noted that while Dr. Wade’s testimony alone was insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for causation, Elder must be given a fair opportunity to present her case with additional expert testimony on remand.
Key Takeaways
– Causation Standard: Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases must prove that the defendant’s negligence “more likely than not” caused the injury, as established in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc.
– Expert Testimony: The appellate court underscored the importance of allowing sufficient expert testimony in complex medical malpractice cases, particularly when multiple defendants with differing specialties are involved.
– Fair Trial: The decision highlights the need for trial courts to exercise discretion fairly, ensuring that plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity to meet their evidentiary burden.
4. Negligent Failure to Diagnose Breast Cancer
In Mezrah v. Bevis, 593 So. 2d 1214, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against her gynecologist and his professional association, alleging that their failure to diagnose her breast cancer in a timely manner caused significant harm. Expert testimony presented at trial established that, had the cancer been diagnosed earlier, it would “more likely than not” have been completely curable. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court entered a final judgment against the defendants.
Key Legal Issues
1. Standard of Care: The defendants argued that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony from a pathologist regarding the breach of the standard of care. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding the testimony consistent with Florida law and supported by additional expert evidence.
2. Causation: The defendants contended that the evidence on causation was speculative. However, the appellate court found that expert testimony clearly established causation, meeting the “more likely than not” standard required in medical malpractice cases, as outlined in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc.
3. Distinction from Prior Cases: The court distinguished this case from Noor v. Continental Casualty Co., where causation was not proven. Unlike Noor, the plaintiff in Mezrah provided sufficient evidence that timely diagnosis would have likely resulted in a complete cure.
Appellate Court Decision
The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the jury’s verdict was supported by competent evidence and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.
Key Takeaways
– Timely Diagnosis Saves Lives: This case underscores the critical importance of early cancer detection and the severe consequences of delayed diagnosis.
– Expert Testimony: Competent expert testimony is essential in proving both the breach of the standard of care and causation in medical malpractice cases.
– Causation Standard: Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendant’s negligence “more likely than not” caused the harm, as established in Florida case law.
Related:
- How do you know if you have a case for medical malpractice?
- What is the hardest element to prove in medical malpractice?
- Medical Malpractice Lawyer
_______________
Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send Alan an email or call him now at (954) 458-8655.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.