Case Description
On January 18, 1999, the Plaintiff saw the Defendant Physician for a screening colonoscopy. The Plaintiff was 51 years of age and was undergoing the colonoscopy for purposes of visualization of the interior of the colon to be sure there were no polyps and/or malignancies. It is alleged that as the Defendant Physician advanced the colonoscope, he found a polyp and removed it for pathology studies. Additionally, as he was withdrawing the scope, he found two additional polyps and removed them for pathology studies.

It is asserted that the pathologist reviewing the tissue specimens determined that the polyps were malignant such that a bowel resection was warranted to prevent any malignancy from breaking through the wall of the colon and spreading through metastasis. Accordingly, the Defendant Physician referred the Plaintiff to the Defendant Surgeon for the planned surgical bowel resection.

On February 3, 1999, the Plaintiff underwent an abdominal CAT Scan for the purpose of surveying not only the colon but other organs such as the liver to determine whether or not the cancer had spread. It is asserted that the radiologist interpreting the CAT Scan advised these Defendants that there was a well-defined two-centimeter lesion which was an intraluminal mass or polyp. It is alleged that the CAT Scan report, in fact, confirmed that there was either a polyp which had been missed by the Defendant or a mass -- tumor -- in the colon which the Defendant Physician missed. It is alleged that the standards of care required the Defendant Physician to make a careful, deliberate examination of the Plaintiff's entire colon with the scope. Had he done so as required by the standards of care, he would have detected the two-centimeter polyp and/or mass tumor in the colon. However, due to his negligence, he simply missed the mass and left it intact in the Plaintiff's colon. Furthermore, when the CAT Scan report was issued, these Defendants negligently failed to note the presence of the mass which was confirmed on the CAT Scan report, and take appropriate action to obtain a tissue diagnosis. This should have been achieved through another colonoscopy, at which time a polyp or mass could have been biopsied just as the first three polyps were biopsied by the Defendant. However, these Defendants and each of them failed to act on the information provided through the CAT Scan, and failed in any way to notify the Plaintiff that there was a mass left in the descending colon which required diagnosis and intervention.

Instead, on February 4, 1999, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant Hospital for a bowel resection involving the areas that the Defendant Physician had found. On the same day as admission, the Plaintiff was taken to an operating room by the Defendant Surgeon and the Defendant Physician. It is alleged that although the Defendant Physician was not a surgeon, he was present in the operating room to assist the Defendant Surgeon in locating the areas that had been biopsied and to ensure the fact that a proper bowel resection was completed to remove any and all cancer from the colon. Again, contrary to the standards of care, the Defendants failed to do an adequate exploration and indeed never explored or visualized the area of the colon where the CAT Scan indicated a remaining mass was present. Had the Defendants acted in accordance with the standards of care and carried out a proper exploration as well as resection, the mass which was depicted clearly on the CAT Scan would have been found and removed that same day. However, these Defendants negligently failed to adequately explore and visualize the bowel, failed to adequately perform the bowel resection, and simply left cancer in the Plaintiff's colon.

After the operation was completed, the Plaintiff was advised and reassured that he had nothing more than malignant polyps which had been removed in toto, with absolutely no spread of the disease through the bowel wall or to any other part of the body. In fact, he was advised that his disease was in such an early state, that he required no follow-up with respect to radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents. He was told, in essence, he was cured.

Tragically, however, these Defendants through their collective and separate negligence, completely missed a small area of cancer in the colon which was left to grow, extend and metastasize.

In the latter of part of February or early March, 2000, the Plaintiff experienced rectal bleeding and returned to the Defendant Physician. As a result, the Defendant Physician determined to repeat the colonoscopy and found the mass that had been left behind and confirmed on the prior CAT Scan. However, due to the negligent delay in diagnosis, the mass had become large, had broken through the bowel wall, and had metastasized to the lymph nodes as well as the liver.

On April 18, 2000, the Plaintiff was readmitted to the Defendant Hospital and underwent an additional bowel resection. Two weeks thereafter, a CAT Scan was completed which demonstrated the presence of significant metastatic involvement of the liver (which was perfectly normal on the prior CAT Scan taken on February 3, 1999). Accordingly, the Plaintiff underwent intense chemotherapy and, faces a terminal prognosis.

It is alleged that had these Defendants acted in accordance with the standards of care, the early malignancy would have been diagnosed and treated in 1999. However, as the direct and proximate result of the negligence of these Defendants and each of them, the cancer was left to grow and spread ultimately leading to a terminal prognosis. As indicated hereinabove, had these Defendants diagnosed the malignancy initially as required, the cure rate was virtually one hundred percent. However, due to their negligence, the Plaintiff has essentially a zero percent chance of cure at this time.