Facts

The plaintiff, 41, underwent her first screening mammogram on Feb. 29, 2005. The study was read by a radiologist, not a defendant, who appreciated a suspicious density in the right breast. He testified that he telephoned the patient's primary care physician, Roe 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. The plaintiff was not advised of the abnormal mammogram by either Roe physician or Roe hospital.

The plaintiff returned to an annual screening mammogram on Feb. 2, 2006. It was discovered at that time that she was not notified of the suspicious mammogram taken 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 the Roe hospital notify plaintiff in writing of the abnormal mammogram.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Roe physician questioned whether the radiologist phoned the result of the mammogram to him, and further questioned whether Roe hospital forwarded the report of the mammogram to him at that time. The mammogram in question had been ordered by physician's assistant without knowledge of Roe physician.

Roe hospital acknowledged that they did not comply with the Mammography Quality Standards Act, but argued that Roe physician was primarily at fault.

Injuries

The plaintiff argued that, owing to the delay, she opted for bilateral mastectomies, which were complicated by infection. She further argued that she moved her family from Lake Arrowhead to Redding, 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 defense contended that there was minimal change in plaintiff's prognosis. They further argued that plaintiff opted for the bilateral mastectomies largely because of an abnormal BRCA genetic test result. They also argued that plaintiff would have moved to Redding in any event.

Result

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