Failure to report aneurysm

[akh93]

I live in NC, 3 months ago, I was diagnosed with a large brain aneurysm,( accidently found in an MRI done for the treatment of migraine...!!) and was admitted in hospital for emergency surgery.In cerebral angiogram, as it was not bleeding, doctor sent me home, and instructed to do surgery some time soon, as a planned one. Now, i am a candidate for surgery, living on lot of restrictions.
I had an MRI brain done in 2005, in NY, for an eye workup, which I was told everything is negative.I requested that CD from that radiology centre and showed to my neuro surgeon.he was shocked...!! My aneurysm is there in that old MRI almost in the same size......
I asked for my medical reports from my eye doctor.MRI report from the radiology centre reports-negative brain MRI...!!

My question is , that imaging centre failed to report a major problem, can I sue them? If I was diagnosed in 2005, I had good medical insurance, no mortgages to pay, I could have done that surgery easily.Now, my insuranse doesnt cover the whole amount, I have mortgages, and tons of bills to pay, my son is in college, I have to pay his fees,and I am the only earning member in my family.I cannot think of a surgery now.

I really want to know, whether I can sue the imaging centre for failure to report this major problem.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

What did they do that caused you further injury?

 

[tranquility]

Sorry. While I disagree damages will be the issue here (7 years is a long time to the body. I suspect the OP is at greater risk in surgery than he was before.), we have a statute of limitations problem.

§ 1‑15. Statute runs from accrual of action.

(a) Civil actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this Chapter, after the cause of action has accrued, except where in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by statute.

(b) Repealed by Session Laws 1979, c. 654, s. 3.

(c) Except where otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for malpractice arising out of the performance of or failure to perform professional services shall be deemed to accrue at the time of the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action: Provided that whenever there is bodily injury to the person, economic or monetary loss, or a defect in or damage to property which originates under circumstances making the injury, loss, defect or damage not readily apparent to the claimant at the time of its origin, and the injury, loss, defect or damage is discovered or should reasonably be discovered by the claimant two or more years after the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action, suit must be commenced within one year from the date discovery is made: Provided nothing herein shall be construed to reduce the statute of limitation in any such case below three years. Provided further, that in no event shall an action be commenced more than four years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action: Provided further, that where damages are sought by reason of a foreign object, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, having been left in the body, a person seeking damages for malpractice may commence an action therefor within one year after discovery thereof as hereinabove provided, but in no event may the action be commenced more than 10 years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action. (C.C.P., s. 17; Code, s. 138; Rev., s. 360; C.S., s. 405; 1967, c. 954, s. 3; 1971, c. 1157, s. 1; 1975, 2nd Sess., c. 977, ss. 1, 2; 1979, c. 654, s. 3.)

This does not seem a foreign object type of malpractice.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry. While I disagree damages will be the issue here (7 years is a long time to the body. I suspect the OP is at greater risk in surgery than he was before.),

According to the OP, the aneurysm has not changed in size. So no "damages" have been caused by the failure to act. But, yes, the SoL also puts a fork in this one...

 

[tranquility]

No, you're wrong. The OP is harmed because he could not treat 7 years ago. That harm may turn to damages based on how long his recovery is, if his recovery happens and any of a number of things which have increased in risk because of the delay. We don't yet know if damages occurred here. If the OP were to die on the table, and this were within the statute, a blanket dismissal of "damages" because of the size of the defect not changed would be in error.

 

[ecmst12]

The fact that OP has a worse insurance plan now, and/or more debts/bills, does NOT seem like it could be factored into any damages though.

 

[Zigner]

No, you're wrong. The OP is harmed because he could not treat 7 years ago. That harm may turn to damages based on how long his recovery is, if his recovery happens and any of a number of things which have increased in risk because of the delay. We don't yet know if damages occurred here. If the OP were to die on the table, and this were within the statute, a blanket dismissal of "damages" because of the size of the defect not changed would be in error.

I agree that neither of us has examined the patient (nor do we have the expertise to do so) so any conjecture either way is useless.

 

[tranquility]

You miss the point.

I can bring in any number of doctors who will say a person is at less risk of brain surgery complications at (say) 35 than at 42. Seven years makes a statistical difference. And, that is ignoring any additional, specific, ailments which arose during the time. The risk is there, we just don't know the damages.

Say we left a stuffed bunny in the patient at the last surgery. No problems for years until a dentist xray pointed to the bunny encased by the skull. Doctors recommend it be removed and surgery planned.

At this point, clearly the cost of surgery is a part of the damages for the bunny malpractice. Is there more?

Textbook surgery, perfectly done, but the guy suffers a stroke while on the table which is proximately related to the surgery. He lives on in a coma for years.

Who's going to be paying for the medical care?

 

[Zigner]

Say we left a stuffed bunny in the patient at the last surgery. No problems for years until a dentist xray pointed to the bunny encased by the skull. Doctors recommend it be removed and surgery planned.

At this point, clearly the cost of surgery is a part of the damages for the bunny malpractice. Is there more?

Textbook surgery, perfectly done, but the guy suffers a stroke while on the table which is proximately related to the surgery. He lives on in a coma for years.

Who's going to be paying for the medical care?

Your hypothetical scenario is entirely unrelated to the OP's situation. Nothing was "left" in the OP.

 

[tranquility]

Both are called malpractice. For the argument you are making (no case because there are no damages), they are alike. I was not alleging similar facts, but similar legal issues and the way the courts resolve them.

 

[Zigner]

Both are called malpractice. For the argument you are making (no case because there are no damages), they are alike. I was not alleging similar facts, but similar legal issues and the way the courts resolve them.

They are NOT alike - not even close. C'mon Tranq, you know that.

 

[tranquility]

I believe they stand for the exact same proposition. Just because we don't know the extent of damages now does not mean they are not there.