Man’s death blamed on delayed diagnosis of pancreatic cancer — $2 million settlement

The plaintiff presented to an emergency room with a chief complaint of right-sided flank pain, hematuria and painful urination. As part of the workup, the defendant ordered a CT of the abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast.

The radiologist reported the impression in part as a relative solid-appearing lesion in the pancreatic tail and recommended a non-emergent CT of the abdomen with IV contrast. The defendant received the radiology report and part of the record prior to the discharge of the patient.

The defendant’s clinical impression was a urinary tract infection, and the patient was discharged home with a prescription to address the urinary tract infection. It was also part of the discharge recommendations to follow up with his primary care physician. At no time did the defendant inform the plaintiff there was an abnormality on the CT without contrast nor that the findings in the CT report included that the pancreas tail had a solid lesion measuring 3.9 cm. Nor did the defendant inform the plaintiff that the radiologist had recommended a non-emergent CT with contrast.

The plaintiff left the emergency room thinking he had a UTI that would clear up with the prescribed medication. The plaintiff left the emergency room without any knowledge of a suspicious lesion on the pancreas showing on the CT and the need for follow-up after that finding.

Approximately 18 months later, the plaintiff began to experience right upper quadrant pain and nausea intermittently for a month. A month later, a CT of the abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast showed a large mass in the pancreas. That same imaging indicated that the mass most likely represented a primary pancreatic neoplasm.

In addition, the impression from the study found a probable metastatic lesion to the liver. The plaintiff was diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer.

The plaintiff’s emergency room physician expert opined that the failure to inform the plaintiff of the suspicious lesion was a breach in the standard of care. The plaintiff’s oncology expert opined that the pancreatic lesion at the time of the ER visit was resectable and at an early stage, which had a high probability of survival.

The plaintiff died at the age of 57, leaving a wife, four adult children, and two minor grandchildren who were dependent on the plaintiff for support and were therefore beneficiaries.

Melissa G. Ray, counsel for the plaintiff, provided case information.

Type of action: Medical Malpractice

Injuries alleged: Delayed diagnosis of cancer resulting in death

Date resolved: Aug. 28, 2024

Special damages: Approximately $1.5 million in lost future income and benefits

Attorneys for plaintiff: Charles J. Zauzig III and Melissa G. Ray, Woodbridge, Nichols Zauzig