September, 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.

Car Accident Victim Becomes Recipient of UK’s Largest Ever Compensation Award

A story that appeared in the media yesterday has served as a reminder of the role of compensation and the ways in which it can help accident victims to rebuild their lives after a car accident has charged their outlook for ever.

On Thursday the Daily Express reported on the biggest personal injury compensation payout the UK has ever seen, awarded to 39 year old Manny Helmot, a former Commonwealth cycling champion from Guernsey.

Mr Helmot was on a training ride in November 1998, the same year as he competed in the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, when he was knocked off his bike by a car and suffered catastrophic injuries. He sustained such severe brain damage that to this day, twelve years later, his cognitive abilities are severely affected, his memory and judgment are impaired, and he cannot use his right arm, drive a car, or ride a bike. He is also registered blind due to the double vision from which he has suffered since the accident.

Yesterday it was revealed that he had been awarded GBP13.7 million, dwarfing the previous record of GBP11 million, which was awarded earlier this year to Wasim Mohammed, from Walsall in the West Midlands, after he was paralysed in a car accident that was attributed to his friend.

Part of the reason for the award’s size is that Guernsey does not have the same legal provision to pay compensation in installments as the rest of the UK. The main motivation behind it, however, is the extent of Mr Helmot’s injuries.

As well as the physical problems mentioned, he also suffers from an undisclosed psychotic illness as a result of drugs he was given in the aftermath of the accident and other psychological problems.

The payout equates to roughly GBP350,000 per year for the rest of Mr Helmot’s foreseeable life, the expectancy of which has been reduced due to his injuries. An initial figure of around GBP9 million was decided, but upon appeal by Mr Helmot’s carers, his mother and her partner, it was increased to just shy of GBP14 million.

This figure will be met by the driver of the car that struck Mr Helmot, Dylan Simon, who was speeding when he hit the 28-year old’s bike. He was convicted of dangerous driving and both he and his insurers must pay the compensation between them.

Mrs Helmot’s mother spoke of her delight at the award.

“All of the money will go into a trust to support Manny for the rest of his life,” she said.

“The size of the award is very large but it must last for Manny’s estimated lifetime, which is another 40 years or more, hopefully.

“Manny needs 24-hour care from a team of carers and the only way we could have afforded that with confidence was to win this appeal.”

She added: “We are really thrilled. The extra money will make all the difference. His life was ruined but at least we can now afford to give him the care he needs for the rest of his days.”

The message boards under this online article contained the usual polar opinions, from people saying the award was ‘obscene’ to readers who thought it wasn’t large enough.

One commentator, in response to the article, which contained a photograph of a fit and healthy Mr Helmot on his bike, and a more recent picture depicting the same man with his arm in a sling and his right eye permanently shut, said, “The difference in the two photographs without meeting this young man say it all. Judges do not award on a whim. If the young man on the bike was asked which he would rather be? We all know the answer.”

This is a most valuable point. Compensation is often seen in a negative light by those who don’t actually seem to understand its purpose. This award has not been made to enable Mr Helmot to buy a Porsche or to send him on holiday.

The man needs 24 hour care from his devoted mother and stepfather, and without the NHS, from which Guernsey does not benefit, to fund his care, this award suddenly seems more reasonable. The article merely touches on what exactly ‘24 hour care’ might entail: specialised care equipment is expensive, as are nurses and respite workers, therapists, and so on.

The naysayers also ask why the amounts awarded to Mr Helmot is so vast compared to servicemen and members of the security forces if they are injured? The answer is brutally simple, as clinical as it may seem to state the obvious: those men and women implicitly acknowledge the dangers of their vocation when they join the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the police.

They are different from a man who was a civilian training to represent his country doing something he loved, and whose life-changing injuries were not of his own making.

Medical License Defense

Medical professionals rely on licensing to continue their practices and careers. Physicians, nurses, dentists, veterinarians, and psychologists all must be licensed in order to practice their profession. When a professional’s license comes up for renewal, he or she must be rescreened by the professional board to have it renewed. If the board is unsatisfied with a licensee’s performance or suspects the individual of a violation, the board may have his or her license suspended or even revoked. Losing a professional license could mean not only losing your job or your practice, but also your career.

When a professional is being investigated for a violation, he or she has the right to seek legal counsel for advice and representation. Medical license defense is a specialized field of law that exists to assist professionals with upholding their license to practice. This field draws from many sectors of law to represent a client’s case, such as:

  • Administrative Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Health Law

Defending a medical license can be extremely complex. A single case may involve a formal review by the licensing board, rounds of questioning and reviewing, appeals, and more. Some of the aspects that may be involved in a license defense proceeding include:

  • Peer Review
  • Appeals
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • <lChemical Dependency Investigations

  • Criminal Investigations
  • Diversion Program Initiation

In any license defense case, the primary goal is to help the licensed professional keep his or her privilege to practice. If you are being investigated for a license violation, an experienced medical license defense lawyer can provide you with legal advice and assistance throughout your case. He or she can review the allegations and evidence against you and will fight on your behalf to pursue the best resolution possible.

For More Information

To learn more about defending your professional licensure status and protecting your career, visit the website of the Texas medical license defense lawyers of the Leichter Law Firm today.

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.

Medical License Defense

Medical professionals rely on licensing to continue their practices and careers. Physicians, nurses, dentists, veterinarians, and psychologists all must be licensed in order to practice their profession. When a professional’s license comes up for renewal, he or she must be rescreened by the professional board to have it renewed. If the board is unsatisfied with a licensee’s performance or suspects the individual of a violation, the board may have his or her license suspended or even revoked. Losing a professional license could mean not only losing your job or your practice, but also your career.

When a professional is being investigated for a violation, he or she has the right to seek legal counsel for advice and representation. Medical license defense is a specialized field of law that exists to assist professionals with upholding their license to practice. This field draws from many sectors of law to represent a client’s case, such as:

  • Administrative Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Health Law

Defending a medical license can be extremely complex. A single case may involve a formal review by the licensing board, rounds of questioning and reviewing, appeals, and more. Some of the aspects that may be involved in a license defense proceeding include:

  • Peer Review
  • Appeals
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • <lChemical Dependency Investigations

  • Criminal Investigations
  • Diversion Program Initiation

In any license defense case, the primary goal is to help the licensed professional keep his or her privilege to practice. If you are being investigated for a license violation, an experienced medical license defense lawyer can provide you with legal advice and assistance throughout your case. He or she can review the allegations and evidence against you and will fight on your behalf to pursue the best resolution possible.

For More Information

To learn more about defending your professional licensure status and protecting your career, visit the website of the Texas medical license defense lawyers of the Leichter Law Firm today.

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.

Medical License Defense

Medical professionals rely on licensing to continue their practices and careers. Physicians, nurses, dentists, veterinarians, and psychologists all must be licensed in order to practice their profession. When a professional’s license comes up for renewal, he or she must be rescreened by the professional board to have it renewed. If the board is unsatisfied with a licensee’s performance or suspects the individual of a violation, the board may have his or her license suspended or even revoked. Losing a professional license could mean not only losing your job or your practice, but also your career.

When a professional is being investigated for a violation, he or she has the right to seek legal counsel for advice and representation. Medical license defense is a specialized field of law that exists to assist professionals with upholding their license to practice. This field draws from many sectors of law to represent a client’s case, such as:

  • Administrative Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Health Law

Defending a medical license can be extremely complex. A single case may involve a formal review by the licensing board, rounds of questioning and reviewing, appeals, and more. Some of the aspects that may be involved in a license defense proceeding include:

  • Peer Review
  • Appeals
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • <lChemical Dependency Investigations

  • Criminal Investigations
  • Diversion Program Initiation

In any license defense case, the primary goal is to help the licensed professional keep his or her privilege to practice. If you are being investigated for a license violation, an experienced medical license defense lawyer can provide you with legal advice and assistance throughout your case. He or she can review the allegations and evidence against you and will fight on your behalf to pursue the best resolution possible.

For More Information

To learn more about defending your professional licensure status and protecting your career, visit the website of the Texas medical license defense lawyers of the Leichter Law Firm today.

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.