$______ RECOVERY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - RADIOLOGY - FAILURE TO IDENTIFY PELVIC TUMOR ON CT-SCAN WHEN 34-YEAR-OLD PATIENT VISITS E.R. COMPLAINING OF RADIATING ABDOMINAL PAIN - DEATH SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 2 YEARS LATER FROM AGGRESSIVE CANCER - DECEDENT LEFT HUSBAND AND 6-YEAROLD DAUGHTER.

• Pages: 5-5

Attorney for plaintiff: Christopher Schnieders of

Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC in Overland, KS.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff, who argued that the defendant prescribed an exces-

sive amount of opioids for too long a period and heightened the

risk by adding benzodiazepines despite a black box warning

against combining the 2 medications, tried this case in a very con-

servative county. In this regard, the plaintiff, noting the likelihood

of a finding of comparative negligence, addressed the issue during

summations, arguing that even if the jury wished to assess fault

against the decedent, they should also consider that the decedent

would not have faced such hazards if the defendant had not

deviated.

It should be noted that the court instructed the jury that a finding

of 50% comparative negligence or greater would result in a de-

fense verdict. Finally, the plaintiff stressed that none of the experts

concluded that the autopsy had any sign of an intentional overdose

in the hours preceding the death or that the death was the result of

suicide.

$1,000,000 RECOVERY – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – RADIOLOGY – FAILURE TO

IDENTIFY PELVIC TUMOR ON CT-SCAN WHEN 34-YEAR-OLD PATIENT VISITS E.R.

COMPLAINING OF RADIATING ABDOMINAL PAIN – DEATH SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 2

YEARS LATER FROM AGGRESSIVE CANCER – DECEDENT LEFT HUSBAND AND 6-YEAR-

OLD DAUGHTER.

Essex County, NJ

This medical malpractice case involved a then-34-

year-old decedent in which the plaintiff contended

that the defendant radiologist negligently failed to

observe a pelvic tumor on CT-scan when the

decedent presented to the E.R. in January 2018

complaining of radiating abdominal pain. The

plaintiff also contended that the defendant

radiologist negligently made a similar error 3

months later and also negligently failed to

observe the tumor when an ultrasound was taken.

The plaintiff asserted that when she consulted

with the non-party Memorial Sloan Kettering

Hospital, the physicians determined that the

original CT-scan showed a leiomyosarcoma which

spread to the colon and ovaries in the

approximate 6-month period since the patient first

presented to the emergency room. The decedent

underwent surgery and chemotherapy before

dying in April, 2020. She left a husband and a

daughter, age 6, at the time of death. The

defendant would have asserted that in view of the

aggressive nature of the tumor, it was doubtful

that the delay in diagnosis altered the outcome.

The plaintiff would have countered that in view of the

findings on diagnosis that the tumor had spread sig-

nificantly in the approximate six month interim, the

defendant’s position should be rejected. The evi-

dence disclosed that the approximately 3 months af-

ter first visiting the E.R., the decedent returned to the

same emergency room complaining of radiating ab-

dominal pain. The defendant physician was the radi-

ologist on call and reviewed the prior 1/16/18

abdominal CT-scan and a new ultrasound. Again, he

found no abnormalities in either scan. The decedent

was then released from the emergency room. The

defendant would have asserted that in view of the

aggressive nature of the tumor, it was doubtful that

the delay in diagnosis altered the outcome.

The decedent continued to experience abdominal

pain. The plaintiff’s radiologist contended that as of

the time the decedent visited the non-party hospital

in June of 2018, it was determined that the plaintiff

had exhibited a leiomyosarcoma, a rare and aggres-

sive cancer, when she first presented 6 months ear-

lier. The patient gave a pre-suit deposition to preserve

her testimony. The plaintiff would have argued that

the jury could determine from the deposition that the

decedent had a very positive and determined atti-

tude and that she would survive. The plaintiff would

have argued that the jury should consider, on the is-

sue of pain and suffering, that had the tumor been

timely diagnosed and treated, she would have sur-

vived or her life expectancy would have been pro-

longed, which would have been particularly

significant since she had a young daughter at home.

The defendant radiologist had a $1,000,000 consent

policy. The case settled prior to trial for the defendant

physician’s policy.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s radiology expert: Marc Glickstein, M.D.

from Ocean Ridge, FL.

Turkmen vs. Richmond, et al. Docket no. ESX-L-7834-

19, 02-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Gregg A. Stone of Kirsch

Gelband & Stone in Newark, NJ.

COMMENTARY

The defendant would have argued on proximate cause that in view

of the aggressive nature of the tumor, the time of diagnosis would

not have resulted in a change in the outcome. The plaintiff would

have countered this position by emphasizing that it was deter-

mined that in the approximate 6-month period between the al-

leged negligence and the diagnosis, the tumor had spread to the

colon and ovaries, arguing that it was clear that the deviation con-

stituted a substantial factor in the shortened life expectancy and

death. Additionally, in her deposition to preserve testimony, the

plaintiff made a compelling appearance and it is felt that if the de-

fendant radiologist had not consented to the settlement, a jury

could easily return with an award which could well have higher

than the policy.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 5

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now