Drs obligation to inform of suspected disease

[LesSher]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with food poisoning. My stay after the ER was 4 days. Numerous tests were done, and I was sent home with some painkillers. Later, I had reason to ask for my records. In it, one of the tests indicated "Suspicious for (disease)." It later turned out I had this serious disease, but the hospital doctors never mentioned it.

Personally, I feel that they had an ethical obligation to tell me, but I'm wondering if they also had a legal obligation.

Thanks.

 

[tranquility]

A lot of facts would be needed to know, but we may be able to end the whole discussion with a single answer. How were you hurt by the lack of disclosure?

 

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with food poisoning. My stay after the ER was 4 days. Numerous tests were done, and I was sent home with some painkillers. Later, I had reason to ask for my records. In it, one of the tests indicated "Suspicious for (disease)." It later turned out I had this serious disease, but the hospital doctors never mentioned it.

Personally, I feel that they had an ethical obligation to tell me, but I'm wondering if they also had a legal obligation.

Thanks.

Would it be fair to say you never heard of a "differential diagnosis"?

 

[tranquility]

On that point, most every finding could be suspicious of a brain tumor.

 

[Zigner]

Did you have the disease?

 

[LesSher]

Yes, I have the disease. What I'm asking is - did the Dr. in the hospital have a legal obligation to tell me that there was evidence that I might?

Not, was I hurt, should I sue, etc. Just whether or not the obligation exists...

 

[tranquility]

Not if you weren't hurt.

 

[LesSher]

Tranquility, that doesn't make any sense. The obligation exists or it doesn't - prior to any outcome that takes place in the future. You can't have a legal obligation that is retroactively negated or confirmed based on an outcome.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If you actually had it, maybe. Out of curiosity, did you have health insurance at the time of the ER visit?

 

[LesSher]

Yes, I had/have health insurance throughout the ER visit, and for the entire 4-day hospital stay. Why?

 

[ecmst12]

If they were testing to rule out this disease, there may not have been any obligation to inform you - if it was a "just in case" kind of test, they may not have wanted to alarm you until the results were in and they saw whether it was necessary to let you know.

So how much time passed between the hospital stay and when you were actually officially diagnosed? And what happened during that time?

 

[LesSher]

Let me clarify. The hospital records from a CT scan indicate "Suspicious for (x-disease)."

To diagnose the disease, more tests were necessary. But they never gave me the information that the disease was suspected.

I still don't understand how they can be obligated or not obligated based on something that happens in the future.

It's like saying you're obligated to not throw baseballs at someone's house, unless no windows are broken, and no one gets hurt, in which case you're legally allowed to throw all the baseballs you want...

 

[LesSher]

ecmst12, your question seems aimed at whether or not I should sue. But that's not where I'm going.

Clearly, they didn't rule it out.

 

[ecmst12]

Did they perform the further tests or advise you to have the further tests performed?

The point is, they are obligated to treat you. Treating you does NOT ALWAYS mean full disclosure about everything to you, so long as they are actually addressing the problem.

 

[LesSher]

No further tests were performed, no advice to have further tests performed - the issue was never mentioned.

So, to your point, they did treat me for the food poisoning that I arrived with, but did not mention suspicion for the disease I was later diagnosed with.