P.O. BOX 447
CONCORD, NH 03301
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Kenneth C. Brown, Esq. and Jared R. Green, Esq.
Case Title: Anonymous v. Anonymous
Court: Anonymous Date of Injury: November 17, 2003
Liability Facts: The plaintiff came under the care of the defendant when he received a traumatic blow to the abdomen in the course of his work as a counselor in a juvenile correctional facility. A CT scan was performed on November 17, 2003 which revealed a mass in the region of the pancreatic head. The radiologist reviewing the November 17, 2003 CT scan stated “A malignancy cannot be completely excluded. MRI examination might be helpful.” A second CT scan was performed on November 18, 2003 and a different radiologist wrote in his report, which was forwarded to the defendant, “I would continue to consider the possibility of some type of pancreatic lesion, be it benign or malignancy, and as such would obtain a follow-up study allowing for time for resolution of pancreatic hematoma. Therefore, a follow-up CT evaluation is recommended in approximately one to two months.”
Despite the recommendations of the radiologists who reviewed these studies, the defendant failed to communicate these recommendations to the plaintiff and his primary-care physician. The defendant also failed to recommend or obtain a follow-up study of the suspected pancreatic lesion. The defendant merely wrote a return-to-work note and stated that the plaintiff would be seen on an as-needed basis. The plaintiff’s pancreatic tumor went undiagnosed and untreated until October 2005, which allowed it to grow and spread to the point where it is now inoperable and incurable.
Plaintiff: Sex:M Age at time of injury: 47
Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability: The defendant failed to meet the applicable standard of care in treatment given to the plaintiff in failing to follow the recommendations of the two radiologists who interpreted the November 17 and 18, 2003 studies and order follow-up studies, failing to communicate these findings to the plaintiff or his primary-care physician, and failing to exercise the degree of care and skill as should the average and prudent physician under the same or similar circumstances.
Defendant’s Theory of Defense: No proximate or medical causation exists. The statute of limitations was pled as an affirmative defense. The defendant stated that he acted reasonably and according to accepted medical standards and care and treatment, and denies substandard care and casual harm.
Injuries: (Diagnosis/Prognosis/Permanency): The plaintiff’s pancreatic tumor is now inoperable, resulting in a shortened life span.
COUNSEL: Kenneth C. Brown, Esq.
ABRAMSON, BROWN & DUGAN
1819 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03104
Counsel for the Plaintiff
1-800-662-6230 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Latest posts by Mark Abramson (see all)
- 5 Abramson, Brown & Dugan Attorneys Named to Best Lawyers in America - August 24, 2017
- Shoemaker v OHM Corporation a Case Study - April 15, 2017
- Sidestepping the Repeal of Joint and Several Liability a Case Study - March 18, 2017