August, 2010: APPEALS LAWYER

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Why Are Court Reporters Needed For Legal Proceedings?

Court reporters are often present in legal proceedings. As guardians of the record, they take down everything that is said by all parties during the proceedings. This is done using a steno machine to capture words and phrases as they are spoken syllable by syllable. Court reporters are present at legal hearings and motions, depositions, trials, courts martial, settlement conferences, examinations under oath, fact-finding conferences and arbitrations. While is it not usually required by law that a stenographer is present, most lawyers will hire an independent court reporter to make sure that the opposing side has done so. Some court jurisdictions provide one with the courtroom, particularly if it hears criminal cases. There are a number of reasons attorneys prefer to have a court reporter present.

Proof

Sometimes people remember things differently. This is often the case with legal testimony. Hiring an impartial, accurate third party to take down the testimony prevents prolonged quibbling later over who said what when. Should the lawyers have a disagreement, the proceedings – or a portion of them – can be transcribed into a certified written record. At this point, counsel can read the true record and decide whether someone made a certain statement or not.

Memory

In many cases, an attorney may need to write an order or compile a list of items requested in the legal case. Rather than attempt to make a complete list or take notes during the hearing or deposition, the lawyer can rely on the deposition reporter or court stenographer to produce an accurate excerpt of the proceedings. This will include an exact statement of not only the list, but any stipulations or requirements. For example, the rules agreed upon by both parties in a child custody battle may be typed up by a court reporter. The attorney who is writing an order will have all of the features of the agreement available in the proper terminology. When the order is written based on the court reporting transcription, it will be accurate.

Absence

There are several reasons why an attorney might not be present for a deposition, court hearing or other legal proceeding. Absence when something important happened can be detrimental to a lawyer’s case when a court reporter was not there, either. The lawyer may have recently been added or substituted as the party’s attorney. They may need to see everything that has been transcribed in the case to get up to speed with all testimony and agreements. Occasionally, an attorney will work with a number of other lawyers in the same case. Different lawyers will cover different parts of the case, then trade information later.

Appeal

In the event a trial verdict is appealed by either party, most courts of appeal require the original certified transcript to be filed with the appeal request. Even if it has been quite some time since the original case was heard, the stenographer can produce the transcript. They are required by law to keep their notes for a certain number of years, depending on the city or county jurisdiction, and whether it is a federal or state case.

Review

From time to time, things happen in court or in deposition which are reviewed by higher decision makers regarding specific repercussions of the case. This includes the State Bar, medical malpractice panels and parole review boards. By providing a true context of what took place in the previous trial or hearing, the current panel can better understand how the present circumstances came to be.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Student Loan Wage Garnishment

If the payment you skipped for a few months is your student loan, the IRS can take any refund you may be entitled to or the government can take your federal benefits such as Social Security and Social Security Disability Benefits or a private lender or the government can sue you to collect or the government may take “garnish” of your pay check.

The most common is a garnishment from your pay check. The government can take a portion of your wages to up to 15% but not more than 30 times the current federal minimum wage. But you do have some options when dealing with a garnishment which will depend on whether or not you are delinquent with your payments or in default. Default is when you have not made a payment in nine months and the entire loan balance becomes immediately payable.

In most cases, people end up on a default status. A lender can also declare you in default if you fail to meet other terms of the contract for nine months. A delinquency period starts on the first day after you miss a payment. When this happens, the lender has to follow certain guidelines and must at least send one written letter during the first 15 days of when payment was missed and they must let you know about the Student Loan Ombudsman. The Student Loan Ombudsman is available at the Federal Student Aid office of the Department of Education and helps settle disputes and other problems with the student loans. If your delinquency continues for nine months whether or not you reach out to available resources you will be considered in default.

After you are considered in default, the next step is always wage garnishment if employed. If you feel that it is unfair for some reason or there are explanatory circumstances, the first thing to do is write a letter of appeal which, unfortunately, does not work for most people. There are two ways to attempt to stop a garnishment and the best way is to try to contact the student loan collection agency and work out a payment plan to repay over 12 months that you can stick to. And the next thing to do is consolidating any delinquent loans.

If you do get a wage garnishment, many people think they can be fired from their jobs which is not true. An employer cannot legally fire you because of wage garnishment even though it does require additional paperwork or anything else on them. If you do get more than one wage garnishment, for some reason you are no longer protected by law from termination.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

How to Find the Best Mesothelioma Lawyer

If you or someone you love has been struck down by mesothelioma then you may have already decided that you should engage a mesothelioma lawyer. After all, shouldn’t the expensive medical treatments as well as the eventual loss of income be paid for by the company responsible for causing the disease in the first place?

With everything that has been going on since the diagnosis you may be very tempted to just type in “mesothelioma lawyer” into a search engine on the Internet and choose one of the names that pop up.

Deciding which is the right firm to choose can be rather challenging because you will find that there are many firms to choose from.

So you may decide to just go with the first name on the list – a lot of people do just that.

However, with all that is at stake do you really want to put your fate in the hands of someone you chose by making a rather arbitrary decision?

If you feel that more research is warranted then you may want to consider asking the following questions.

Ask any potential mesothelioma attorney that you are considering hiring how many mesothelioma cases they have actually handled. Asbestos cases in general are just too broad a category. You want to know the specific number of mesothelioma cases the attorney has represented. Obviously, the more experience they have the better off you are.

Next, find out the results of these cases. Were there out of court settlements? If the cases went to trial did they win them or lose them? Are there any on appeal? Get the exact numbers.

Unbeknownst to outsiders, many attorneys that you interview may refer your case to another firm that may have more experience with your particular situation.

This could be a good thing for you because you will then have the services of two firms without accruing any additional costs. So make sure to ask if the attorney whom you are interviewing will personally represent your case.

You will also probably want to be assured that your attorney will be available to you when you need to speak to him or her. And, if they are not free when you call find out how long they will take to return your calls.   During the interview process decide whether or not you fully understand and are satisfied with their answers. If you are having a problem now it will probably get worse if you choose to hire them.

These cases are very expensive to investigate and conduct. Therefore you will definitely want to know if your case will be accepted on a contingency basis. If they agree then your attorney will only get his or her expenses and fees if they win the case for you.

Find out how strong the attorney’s network is. If your attorney knows others across the country that will share expertise and research then it is more likely that a solid case can be built for you.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.