Mister T said:
Hi, the first Ct report read "no hemorrhage, mass or extraaxial collection is identified (the bonetumor is extraaxial, meaning outside the brain), Parenchymal attenuation throughout the brain is normal. visualized sinuses and orbits are normal. Impression: negative
The second CT from the same hospital read Comparison is made with previous study. Gray and white differentiation is maintined and the ventricles are normal in size. Overall there is no significat change since previous study. Conclusin: negative
The CT from the next hospital was a long detailed report, summarized it said "normal brain" and "extra axial lesion adjacent to the left orbit, appears benign", and from that we went on to MRI and it was determined that its a bone tumor causing compression against the frontal lobe with symptoms of headache and confusion. Previous doctors indicated the patient "needed psychological referral"
Consultation with a lawyer is being seriously considered at this point especially due to the fact that the patient has suffered for nearly a year with a nearly disabling "mystery illness"
edit: it was from a new scan... however he acknowledged later that the mass was OBVIOUS on the first scan and it was indeed there (even I can see it)
First of all, you must understand that a CT or a radiologist's report on a CT is only a factor in making a diagnosis and not the gold standard in and of it's self.
While if may scream out to you of malpractice this may in fact fall within the scope of a valid reportm even if something was present in the first or second CT. CT and MRI have different qualities insofar as their usefulness in diagnosis. Radiologists speak their own language and even other medical practioners may have totally different expectations for how their orders may be interpreted. I asked some questions because your age may affect whether or not a finding is normal for aging. History of a head injury may affect what they look for or even the thickness of the slice, they may totally miss the defect if the information is omitted from the order. It is possible that the doctor who ordered the CT may have omitted items from the order that in turn determined the protcol followed in the CT, neither the ordering physician nor the radiologist committing any malpractice.
Since you failed to answer my questions, nor even given us the state where this took place, this is needed to advise insofar as referals and statutes of limitation, it is impossible to advise you other than to consult with a malpractice attorney as to whether or not you have a cause of action.
From the facts you have provided it appears that even the 3rd reoprt saw a normal brain and the tumor benign, this is based on the partial reports cited, not knowing when each CT was made, History, the orders or the complete report, just your take on the last. The tumor or lesion in the bone/skull could appear to be the normal and expected result of calcification that follows trauma or can occur due to normal aging. When and whether your received a MRI that found a difference is another factor, I could go on. Please consult a medmal attorney and report back with what their experts determines after reviewing your medical history anf the record.