Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitnick, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Roses, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitnick, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Roses, D. F.

Radiology, Vol 189, 673-676, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Breast cancer malpractice litigation in New York State

JS Mitnick, MF Vazquez, KP Plesser and DF Roses
Department of Radiology, Tisch Hospital, New York University Medical Center, NY.

PURPOSE: To identify causes of purported malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors reviewed cases from The New York Jury Verdict Reporter listed between 1985 and 1991 to look for those in which there was alleged delay in diagnosis or treatment of breast cancer. RESULTS: Of 34 cases identified, 32 (94%) were based on presumed delay in diagnosis and only two (6%) on claims of therapeutic malpractice. Delay in diagnosis was commonly claimed in patients younger than 50 years (76%). Palpable masses were present in 94% of these cases. Either mammograms were not obtained (16 cases, 50%) or findings were interpreted as normal or as fibrocystic disease (12 cases, 38%). Specialists most frequently cited were gynecologists (16 of 39,41%). Highest awards (> or = $1 million) were more commonly given to patients younger than 50 years with proved distant or nodal metastasis (six of 34, 18%). CONCLUSION: Emphasis on early diagnosis has led to the perception that purported delay in diagnosis, however short, even in the presence of a palpable mass, changes the chances for survival.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
H. Singh, S. Sethi, M. Raber, and L. A. Petersen
Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions
J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 5009 - 5018.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
D. Da Costa, A. Taddese, M. L. Cure, D. Gerson, R. Poppiti Jr, and L. E. Esserman
Common and Unusual Diseases of the Nipple-Areolar Complex
RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S65 - S77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.