Confidential
Settlement – $429,999Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Peter J. Polos
(Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP)
Defendant
John E. West
(Brobeck West Borges Rosa & Douville LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Philip Biederman
(medical)
David A. Margileth
(medical)
Defendant
John E. West
(Brobeck West Borges Rosa & Douville LLP)
(medical)
Becky Miller
(medical)
Facts
In March 1994, the plaintiff, a 37-year-old woman, complained to the defendant family physician of uncomfortable lumps in her breast and a larger "cyst like" structure. The lump was noted to be between the 9:00 and 12:00 positions in her left breast. A mammogram was ordered which was performed several weeks later. However, because of the plaintiff's severe bilateral and symmetrical mammary dysplasia, (dense breast tissue) the diagnostic reliability of the mammogram was significantly diminished. Therefore, the mammogram was essentially non-diagnostic and could not be used to rule in or rule out cancer. The plaintiff's family physician then referred her to the defendant general surgeon for evaluation of the breast mass. On May 2, 1994, the defendant surgeon performed an examination which revealed a tender area of thickening at approximately the 9:00 position. The defendant surgeon's impression was that it was simply a tender area of thickening on the left breast at the 9:00 position, status post normal delivery three months ago. If the tenderness persisted, the plan was to perform a sonogram to rule out a persistent mass. Follow-up was scheduled one month later. On June 1, 1994, the plaintiff was seen by another general surgeon. At that time, another examination noted a left 4 x 6 centimeter oblong area of firmness and tenderness probably more organized than defendant general surgeon's note indicated. At this time, plaintiff was diagnosed with post-partum change and no follow-up was scheduled. The plaintiff noted that the mass grew from June to August 1994 when she again saw defendant family physician and specifically requested a referral back to the general surgeon for evaluation. A further evaluation by the defendant general surgeon took place on Aug. 17, 1994 and at this time, a 2 x 3 centimeter mass was noted and described as a multilobular fibronodularity with a decrease in "mass" effect. The impression at that time was localized fibrocystic disease. No sonogram, fine needle aspiration or biopsy was done to rule out cancer at that time. The plaintiff was assured she did not have cancer and released from the care of defendant surgeon back to her family physician. The mass continued to grow and cause tenderness from August 1994 until the middle of June 1995. On June 14, 1995, the plaintiff saw defendant family physician where she continued to complain of the mass. Another mammogram was ordered at this time which was suspicious for cancer. A subsequent biopsy in July and surgery thereafter identified an infiltrating ductal carcinoma with seven of 25 lymph nodes positive for cancer. The plaintiff underwent a left radical mastectomy, eight cycles of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Her prognosis at the time of discovery was less than 40 percent for five-year survival. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on a medical malpractice theory of recovery.
Specials in Evidence
$_____________ $_____________ $_____________ $_____________
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately 1 year after the case was filed. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held on July 25, 1997 before Judge Judy Ryan of AAA resulting in the reported settlement.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390