Just to re-edit my last response due to some fool reporting it for moderator review, this is perfectly acceptable:
Let's see...If she passes due to the cancer, once confirmed by autopsy (which is the best thing to do, and I certainly intend on ordering one whenever she passes because that will document all the organs affected), I will definitely consult a lawyer. I would be extremely foolish not to have an autopsy performed in this case.
"you still have to prove that the death was caused by the malpractice. The more time that elapses between the malpractice event and the death, the harder that becomes."
I have an over 50% chance of proving it, which is all that's needed (preponderance of the evidence). Fact is the CT scan in 2022 should have been interpreted as possible malignant cancer, and if this was interpreted this way, more scans would have been done, the surgery would have been done differently (removing the gland *intact* instead of chopping it up within the body, which spread the cancer and qualifies as a botched surgery), and post-surgery follow-ups would have been different as well. They completely ignored the fact that this was *not* benign, even though they kept saying it was.
As for your second sentence about more time elapsing, I don't see how that makes a difference once death occurs. There are plenty of cases out there (successful ones) where the family doesn't detect the malpractice after a year or two. That's when the SOL kicks in, after discovery. And the malpractice they discovered could have occurred 10 years ago. They still brought the suit and won. Furthermore, you can petition the judge to modify the SOL depending on the case. So I don't understand why time elapsing between malpractice and death makes any difference.
"First, would the outcome have been any different had the cancer been discovered earlier?"
Absolutely. She could have received chemo and radiation early, which would have extended her life. The cancer was in the very beginning stages after all. She also would not have gotten 10 centimeter soft tissue tumor in her leg, another mass in her other adrenal gland, enlarged lymph nodes, etc. And therefore, she would not have had surgery on her leg to remove it (which was, in essence, a totally unnecessary surgery had the cancer been eradicated early). It's really this obvious and common sense.
I hope she doesn't pass away, but I am well-armed in case she does. I already have one lawsuit underway for wrongful termination and fraud regarding my previous employer, which will be very successful according to my lawyer. I wouldn't doubt that a med mal suit will be equally successful if such an event happens.
I will say this, however: IF my employment lawsuit goes nowhere by some weird chance, IF my mother passes away, and IF nothing transpires from a med mal suit, I will have no choice but to seek personal Justice.
Let's see...If she passes due to the cancer, once confirmed by autopsy (which is the best thing to do, and I certainly intend on ordering one whenever she passes because that will document all the organs affected), I will definitely consult a lawyer. I would be extremely foolish not to have an autopsy performed in this case.
"you still have to prove that the death was caused by the malpractice. The more time that elapses between the malpractice event and the death, the harder that becomes."
I have an over 50% chance of proving it, which is all that's needed (preponderance of the evidence). Fact is the CT scan in 2022 should have been interpreted as possible malignant cancer, and if this was interpreted this way, more scans would have been done, the surgery would have been done differently (removing the gland *intact* instead of chopping it up within the body, which spread the cancer and qualifies as a botched surgery), and post-surgery follow-ups would have been different as well. They completely ignored the fact that this was *not* benign, even though they kept saying it was.
As for your second sentence about more time elapsing, I don't see how that makes a difference once death occurs. There are plenty of cases out there (successful ones) where the family doesn't detect the malpractice after a year or two. That's when the SOL kicks in, after discovery. And the malpractice they discovered could have occurred 10 years ago. They still brought the suit and won. Furthermore, you can petition the judge to modify the SOL depending on the case. So I don't understand why time elapsing between malpractice and death makes any difference.
"First, would the outcome have been any different had the cancer been discovered earlier?"
Absolutely. She could have received chemo and radiation early, which would have extended her life. The cancer was in the very beginning stages after all. She also would not have gotten 10 centimeter soft tissue tumor in her leg, another mass in her other adrenal gland, enlarged lymph nodes, etc. And therefore, she would not have had surgery on her leg to remove it (which was, in essence, a totally unnecessary surgery had the cancer been eradicated early). It's really this obvious and common sense.
I hope she doesn't pass away, but I am well-armed in case she does. I already have one lawsuit underway for wrongful termination and fraud regarding my previous employer, which will be very successful according to my lawyer. I wouldn't doubt that a med mal suit will be equally successful if such an event happens.
I will say this, however: IF my employment lawsuit goes nowhere by some weird chance, IF my mother passes away, and IF nothing transpires from a med mal suit, I will have no choice but to seek personal Justice.
