Article
Who is liable when a surgical error occurs?
The answer can depend on whether it is a true error and your prevention strategy. These experts discuss how to develop a safety culture that...
Related article:
The medicolegal considerations of interacting with your patients online
Legal issues: What was the gynecologist’s obligation?
The question remains, did the gynecologist have an obligation to obtain diagnostic mammography and ultrasound of the breast? Would it have been prudent for immediate referral to a breast surgeon? These are critical questions.
Negligence and the standard of care
The malpractice lawsuit against this gynecologist is based on negligence. In essence, it is a claim that the management provided fell below a standard of care that would be given by a reasonably careful and prudent gynecologist under the circumstances. This generally means that the care was less than the profession itself would find acceptable. Here the claim is essentially a diagnostic error claim, a common basis of malpractice.19 The delay in diagnosing breast cancer is a leading cause of malpractice claims against gynecologists.20,21
It is axiomatic that not all bad outcomes are the result of error, and not all errors are a result of an unacceptable standard of care. It is only bad outcomes resulting from careless or negligent errors that give rise to malpractice. But malpractice claims are often filed without knowing whether or not there was negligence—and, as we will see, many of those claims are without merit.
Was there negligence?
Ordinarily the plaintiff/patient must demonstrate that the care by the physician fell below the standard of care and, as a result, the patient suffered an injury. Stated another way, the plaintiff must show that the physician’s actions were unreasonable given all of the circumstances. In this case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the gynecologist’s care was not appropriate. Failure to refer to another physician or provide additional testing is likely to be the major claim for negligence or inappropriate care.
Did that negligence cause injury?
Even if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the care was negligent, to prevail the plaintiff must also demonstrate that that negligence caused the injury—and that might be difficult.
What injury was caused by the delay in discovering the cancer? It did not apparently lead to the patient’s death. Can it be proven that the delay clearly shortened the patient’s life expectancy or required additional expensive and painful treatment? That may be difficult to demonstrate.
Causation. The causation factor could appear in many cancer or similar medical cases. On one hand, causation is a critical matter, but on the other hand, delay in treating cancer might have a very adverse effect on patients.
In recent years, about half the states have solved this dilemma by recognizing the concept of “loss of chance.”22 Essentially, this means that the health care provider, by delaying treatment, diminished the possibility that the patient would survive or recover fully.
There are significant variations among states in the loss-of-chance concept, many being quite technical.22 Thus, it is possible that a delay that reduced the chance of recovery or survival could be the injury and causal connection between the injury and the negligence. Even in states that recognize the loss-of-chance concept, the patient still must prove loss of chance.
