Facts

The plaintiff, age 41, underwent her first screening mammogram on Feb. 28, 2005. A radiologist, not defendant, who appreciated a suspicious density in the right breast, read the study. He testified that he telephoned Roe physician, the plaintiff's primary care physician, and advised him of these suspicious findings. It was contended that the radiology report reflecting the suspicious density was forwarded to Roe physician's office in the normal course of business but that his staff filed the report without notifying Roe physician. Neither Roe physician or Roe hospital advised the plaintiff of the abnormal mammogram.

The plaintiff returned for an annual screening mammogram on Feb. 2, 2006. It was discovered at that time that she was not notified of the suspicious mammogram of 11 months earlier.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the accepted standards of care required that Roe physician's staff notify Roe physician of the suspicious mammogram. The Mammography Quality Standards Act required that Roe hospital notify the plaintiff in writing of the abnormal mammogram.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Roe physician questioned whether the radiologist telephoned the result of the mammogram to him, and further questioned whether Roe hospital forwarded the report of the mammogram to him at that time.

Roe hospital could not establish that it did comply with the Mammography Quality Standards Act, however, it contended that Roe physician did receive a call from the radiologist and that a copy of the radiologist's interpretation of the mammogram was forwarded to and received by Roe physician at or around the time the original mammogram was performed.

Damages

The plaintiff argued that, owing to the delay, she opted for bilateral mastectomies, which were complicated by infection. She further alleged that she moved her family from Lake Arrowhead to Reading, and accepted employment at a lower salary, due to the delay. It was further argued that her prognosis worsened as a result of the delay. The defendant claimed that there was minimal change in plaintiff's prognosis. They argued that plaintiff opted for the bilateral mastectomies largely because of an abnormal BRCA genetic test result. They further argued that plaintiff's would have moved to Redding in any event.

Result

The case settled for $400,000 following mediation with Jay Horton, Esq. The resolution included any further wrongful death claim.