Page 20 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology

SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology

In a court of law, the referring provider’s failure to obtain or review

the report may not necessarily absolve the radiologist of the duty to
communicate an important finding. The answers to the questions of

whether the referring physician (or patient) was negligent, whether
that negligence is equal to or greater than that of the radiologist’s, and

whether it exonerates the radiologist from his or her own negligence are
ultimately answers for the jury to decide. Moreover, during the litigation,

that type of blame-shifting or finger-pointing among the parties generally
does not benefit any of the defendant healthcare providers. As one

author has noted, “Almost all malpractice cases were decided not on the
basis of fact but on the perception of what a jury was likely to think was

fact.”
10

C A S E S T U DY

A 49-year-old female self-referred to the radiologist for mammogram
on October 12 for upper-right outer quadrant breast mass, and

it was interpreted to be abnormal in the area. The radiologist
recommended further study with spot views and ultrasound.

The letter stated that it was the radiologist’s opinion that the

abnormality was probable malignancy and recommended biopsy.

It went on to state that it could be done at that facility and that
a written report in “lay terms was given to the patient” with the
express understanding that, “it is the patient’s responsibility to share

the date and place of this mammogram with any physician in the

future”. According to the radiologist’s record, the report was sent
to the patient’s PCP and the patient. The patient, however, failed
to show up at her next scheduled PCP appointment. It was almost

a year later before the patient presented again with right breast

pain in the same area as before. She was treated aggressively for

10 Damages,” Barry Werth (Berkley Trade 1999).

Page 20