This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Medical
Malpractice
Failure to Diagnose

Monica Dibble, Tom Dibble v. WISH (Women's Imaging Specialists in Healthcare), Mark Alson, M.D.

Published: Dec. 3, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 17, 2021 | Filing Date: Jul. 6, 2020 |

Case number: 20CECG01938 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

D. Tyler Tharpe

Court

Fresno County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David M. Moeck
(Quinlan, Kershaw & Fanucchi LLP)


Defendant

Daniel L. Wainwright
(McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP)


Facts

In February 2018, Monica Dibble was treated by Woman's Imaging Specialists in Healthcare (WISH), Wilson Radiological Medical Group, and Dr. Alson (defendants). Ms. Dibble underwent a mammogram and ultrasound which did not detect any abnormalities. In 2019, it was discovered Ms. Dibble had developed breast cancer. Ms. Dibble and her husband, Tom Dibble, brought a medical malpractice action against defendants alleging that a lack of close follow-up and improper imaging techniques and equipment caused Ms. Dibble to suffer damages by way of medical expenses, wage loss, lost of future earning capacity, and general damages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended defendants committed medical malpractice by failing to discover the cancer in 2018. Plaintiffs contended that a lack of close follow-up and improper imaging techniques delayed the discovery of the cancer. Plaintiff contended that defendants committed medical malpractice by misreading and misreporting the mammogram. Plaintiffs contended that defendants fell below the standard of care that resulted in any delay of her treatment and caused her damages. Plaintiff Tom Dibble contended defendants' medical malpractice caused him a loss of consortium.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants contended it did not fall below any standard of care by not recognizing or identifying any abnormalities in February 2018. Defendants contended that the diagnosis in February 2019 was not apparent on the imaging from 2018. Defendants contended there is no triable issue of fact that defendants committed medical practice and did not fall below a standard of care. Defendants contended that because their actions did not amount to medical malpractice, plaintiff Tom Dibble has no claim for loss of consortium.

Result

Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the entire complaint was granted.


#137667

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390