Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
ARTICLE ID 7555
Medical malpractice - Dermatology - Failure to timely diagnose skin cancer - Two-year delay permits progression of melanoma - Cancer metastasizes, spreading to lungs and brain - Loss of chance of cure.
Los Angeles County, California
This action was brought by the male plaintiff, in his mid-40s in
August of ________ when he presented to the defendant dermatologist
and alleged requested that she examine two moles, which the
plaintiff maintained had changed in size and appearance. The
plaintiff contended that the defendant performed no diagnostic
studies on the moles, but instead reassured him that they were
normal in appearance.
The plaintiff and his wife testified that he returned to the
defendant dermatologists office on several more occasions for
the express purpose of having the defendant again examine the
moles, which were located on his neck and back. The plaintiff
contended that on each occasion he was reassured that the moles
did not possess the characteristics potentially indicative of
cancer.
In August of ________, however, the mole on the plaintiffs neck was
noticeably changing and increasing in size. The plaintiff pointed
this change out to the defendant, who at this point determined
that a biopsy of the mole was warranted. The biopsy was positive
for malignant melanoma. Treatment was immediately started, but
several months later it was determined that the cancer had
metastasized to the lungs and brain.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant dermatologist deviated
from the standard of care in failing to perform diagnostic
testing on both moles, which the plaintiff claimed had been
brought to her attention two years earlier. The plaintiff claimed
that the defendants alleged negligence precluded earlier
diagnosis and treatment, which at that time could well have
afforded him an excellent opportunity for cure. The plaintiff
claimed extensive economic damages, including damages for lost
income. The plaintiffs wife asserted a claim for loss of
consortium.
The defendant physician denied negligence and disputed the
plaintiffs contention that the moles were in any way irregular
or altered in appearance until August of ________, at which time an
immediate excision of the mole on the neck was undertaken.
The jury found for the defendant.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.