Injuryboard Commentary - Cancer

Cancer Misdiagnosis and Its Consequences

John Cooper — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:04:00 GMT

According to American Cancer Society, 565,000 people in the U.S. died of cancer in the year 2008 alone. It is estimated that anywhere from 8% to 12 % of these cancer cases were initially misdiagnosed. A cancer misdiagnosis can greatly affect the lives of the patient as well as that of the family. It causes emotional and mental suffering, asi well as the fact that it creates a significant financial strain on all involved. In some instances, the misdiagnosis may have debilitating consequences as result from potentially unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Death or the loss of a substantial chance of survival is another common harm from delayed cancer care.

Every patient has the right to seek a physician’s second opinion. During your examination, never be afraid to ask questions concerning the laboratory and medical procedures. However, once confirmed it is imperative to start treatment immediately.

Cancer misdiagnosis may include:

Improper identification of a tumor as non-cancerous;
Improper labeling or handling of a biopsy specimen;
Failure to routinely check at risk patients;
Failure to review the medical history of the patient's family when considering symptoms and making a diagnosis;
Improper grading of cancer in terms of severity; and
Failure to refer a patient to a specialist.

Regardless, always feel free to seek a 2^nd opinion prior to any treatment of cancer. Obviously, this should be done quickly as time is of the essence. If this protocol has been followed you have probably minimized the likelihood of a misdiagnosis. However, if after reading this article you feel there may be a chance that you have been misdiagnosed, you should seek knowledgeable legal counsel to determine your rights.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm is based in Virginia (VA), near the NE North Carolina (NC) border and handles car,truck,railroad, and medical negligence cases and more. Our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono public information service. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Doctor Wins Retaliation Lawsuit against Hospital

Beth Janicek — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:41:28 GMT

A radiation oncologist who previously worked for the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute won a potential $3 million verdict on charges that she was retaliated against for raising concerns about discrimination. The jury recommended that Dr. Kristina Gerszten be awarded $1.5 million in back pay and $827,292 in front pay from the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Those figures are only advisory, and it will be up to U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab to determine the final amount the defendant will have to pay. In addition to back and front pay, the verdict includes an addition $200,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $300,000 in punitive damages.

Dr. Gerszten filed a federal lawsuit in September 2008 alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her gender and retaliated against for making the original complaint to hospital officials. The jury did not find any evidence of sex discrimination, but determined that she was retaliated against when the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute failed to hire her as a medical director at both UPMC St. Margaret and its facility in Natrona Heights.

Lawsuits against the employer for retaliatory discharge are often difficult cases. Employees who lose their job for the wrong reasons quickly discover that most laws are written against them. Fortunately, Dr Gerszten was able to hold the hospital accountable. We want to encourage people to report suspected wrongs such as discrimination without fear of repercussions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Beth Janicek

Doctor Wins Suit Against Cancer Hospital for Sex Discrimination

David Mittleman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:23:16 GMT

A former radiation oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute won a potential $3 million verdict against the hospital in federal court on charges that her employer retaliated against her when she raised concerns over gender discrimination in the hiring process. Overall, the jury voted to award Dr. Kristina Gerszten $1.5 million in back pay and an additional $827,292 in front pay. However, the decision will ultimately be up to the U.S. District Judge, Arthur J. Schwab, to decide what the hospital will pay for its actions.

Dr. Gerszten originally filed charges in 2008 alleging that hospital officials at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute purposefully passed over her and her female colleagues for promotions and prestigious positions in favor of less experienced male doctors. However, the jury failed to find any evidence of sex discrimination, but nevertheless awarded punitive damages for the hospital’s retaliation against her for originally filing the complaint.

After Dr. Gerszten filed the complaint, the news traveled to her superior, Dr. Dwight Heron, who was ultimately responsible for deciding on Dr. Gerszten’s promotions and contract renewals. The jury found that Dr. Heron retaliated against Dr. Gerszten by refusing to hire her as medical director at a sister hospital, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or the Cancer Center in Natrona Heights, as well as refusing to renew her contract as an oncologist for the hospital when it expired in 2007.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Latent Hazards of Asbestos Exposure

Randy Appleton — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:48:00 GMT

Mesothelioma is a common health hazard caused by asbestos poisoning while working in industries that manufacture products made from this deadly material. Symptoms of asbestos poisoning may not show up immediately due to the long period of reaction latency which can cause symptoms not to show up for 10-40 years after initial exposure to asbestos.

If you feel you have been exposed to asbestos in any way, then it’s crucial to get tested. There are common illnesses that show as symptoms related to asbestos poisoning. In the event that your medical tests are positive for asbestos, then you may find yourself diagnosed with mesothelioma, pleural plaque, or asbestosis.

Asbestos poisoning may show gradual effects to the body but it can lead to serious illnesses which can put financial strain on you and your family. Employers have legal obligations to support your medical expenses, but if they do then they would have to confirm that your asbestos poisoning had been acquired from the work place. In many cases, this would imply guilt on their part and that is the last thing they would want to do as to avoid a costly lawsuit.

If you think that you exhibit symptoms of asbestos poisoning and that it was acquired from the line of work directly or indirectly, you need to have a competent personal injury lawyer who will help you receive the right compensation that you deserve. Don’t dilly-dally around and consult with your lawyer right away before it’s too late. Of course, never sign any documents presented to you by your employer until you meet withy your own attorney for their advice in regards to your asbestos exposure.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Appleton

Fighting the Good Fight -- Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation

John Hopkins — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:49 GMT

They weighed profits against safety and profits won out. Women across the country lost and were forced to suffer with breast cancer. That is the conduct attached to Wyeth for their handling of hormone replacement therapy drugs (HRT).

In 1983, the Food & Drug Administration told Wyeth that human trials were necessary for the safe marketing of HRT medication, PremPro. Wyeth made the conscious decision to refuse doing the trials. Internal documents demonstrate that Wyeth refused to perform additional studies in order to conceal the risks associated with what they knew would be a drug, which would reap huge profits for Wyeth.

www.youtube.com/watch

Women such as Connie Barton and Donna Kendall demonstrated the courage to bring Wyeth into court to answer for their conduct. Jurors who have heard evidence related to Wyeth’s negligence and intentional failures have used terms such as “despicable” and "outrageous conduct” to characterize Wyeth’s behavior.

It was not until Wyeth was forced to admit the dangers of the HRT drugs that they finally took some action. When the study through the Women’s Health Initiative was terminated due to the development of breast cancer by participants, Wyeth’s hand was forced. What did Wyeth do? They “circled the wagons”; continued to deny their fault; and stone-walled women’s claims concerning the danger of their product.

Women such as plaintiffs, Connie Barton and Donna Kendall suffered the loss of their breasts and horrible consequences of cancer treatment because a corporation thought that profit was more important than patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Wyeth to Pay $6.3 Million in Damages for Prempro Connection to Breast Cancer

Camryn Hansen — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:40:43 GMT

This week, a Philadelphia jury ruled that drug giants Wyeth and Upjohn, both owned by Pfizer, are liable for at least $6.3 million in damages because their hormone replacement therapy drugs played a significant causal role an Illinois woman’s breast cancer.

The drugs, Wyeth’s Prempro and Pharmacia & Upjohn’s Provera, are used to treat menopause symptoms including hot flashes, night sweats and mood swings. Donna Kendall, 66, took them for 11 years before having to have a double mastectomy.

In 2002, when Prempro sales were more than $2 billion, a federal study found that women who used Prempro and similar drugs had an increased risk of breast cancer.

Nearly a year ago, we learned that Wyeth paid ghostwriters to produce fraudulent articles in medical journals praising Prempro. Wyeth also kept the ghostwriters’ role in the articles a secret from the medical journal editors and readers. Disturbingly, at least one Wyeth-sponsored positive article was published after the federal study citing Prempro as a breast cancer risk.

Juries are paying attention, and this is good.

In Kendall’s case, jurors concluded Wyeth and Upjohn officials failed to adequately warn Kendall’s doctors about the drugs’ cancer risks and that failure played a role in the physicians’ decision to prescribe the drugs.

The panel also found Wyeth’s and Upjohn’s conduct in marketing and selling the drugs was hiding health risks was “wanton and reckless.” That makes the companies open to a punitive-damage award under Pennsylvania law. –Bloomberg

Since 2006, Wyeth has lost six out of nine jury verdicts. Thus far, at least 34 cases involving Prempro are set for trial, and Wyeth has settled at least five cases over hormone replacement therapy drugs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Outrage - I Don't Like What I'm Seeing in Health Care (Part II)

David Mittleman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:58:53 GMT

A few days ago I wrote about my concerns about recent developments in women's health care, namely the timely detection of breast cancer. Well, I wasn't the only person who felt that way. In fact, the United States Preventive Services Task Force study released on Monday has set off a response that can only be described by one word: outrage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNl77p1WhE

From Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to thousands of women and doctors across the country, women whose diagnostic screenings in their 40s helped save their lives after timely diagnosing them with breast cancer have one message to convey: they are people, not statistics.

As the administration distances itself from the Task Force study, one thing is clear, nobody wants the Task Force's findings to affect insurance coverage of preventive medicine. If a woman, like my wife whose baseline mammogram at age 40 detected breast cancer at an early stage, wants to utilize sound and reasonable preventive health practices, that decision should not be taken away. While our treatment for breast cancer has improved over the decades, there's no dispute over the benefit of early detection of breast cancer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Great American Smokeout: Many Reasons to Kick the Habit

David Mittleman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:35:35 GMT

Maybe we can blame the bad economy, but no matter whatever or whoever is at fault, the fact is that more Americans are smoking cigarettes. In fact, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control found that after years of declining, the number of American smokers is back up again.

There are many good reasons to quit, but many smokers struggle to kick the habit for good. Indeed, according to the American Cancer Society, there are at least 12 important reasons to quit smoking. For example:

1. Smoking fogs the mind: a 2008 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that smoking during middle age is linked to memory problems and lessened reasoning abilities.
2. It may bring on diabetes: according to a 2007 analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, current smokers have a 44% greater chance of developing Type 2 diabetes.
3. It invites infections: the CDC argues that there is strong data to suggest that smokers are more susceptible to pneumonia-causing bacteria than nonsmokers because smoking causes damage to the mucous membranes, making it easier for infectious organisms to latch on.
4. It may affect your sex life: simply stated, smokers are more likely to experience erectile dysfunction than nonsmokers. Furthermore, the severity of this problem increases as the number of cigarettes smoked per day also increases.
5. It may lead to wrinkles, and not just on your face but also on other areas such as the arms.
6. It may hasten menopause: according to a 2001 Surgeon General’s report, women smokers experience natural menopause at an earlier age than nonsmokers. Furthermore, a 2004 report indicated that women smokers also faced increased infertility when compared with nonsmokers.
7. It can dull vision: according to several studies in the medical journal Eye, active smokers face a 2 to 3 times greater risk of developing macular degeneration.
8. It hurts bones: smoking weakens the skeleton and can lead to increased incidence of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Furthermore, smokers of both sexes experience more hip fractures than nonsmokers.
9. It can damage the internal organs: specifically, cigarettes can damage the digestive system, leading to heartburn, peptic ulcers, and gallstones.
10. It may contribute to a poor night’s sleep: according to a study in the medical journal, Chest, smokers are four times as likely to experience nonrestorative sleep than nonsmokers, leading to that feeling of grogginess in the morning.
11. It shaves years, and quality, off of life: male smokers live, on average, 10 years less than their nonsmoking counterparts. Moreover, the nonsmokers experienced a better quality of life than the smokers.
12. Smoking causes cancer: in 2004, the CDC released a report linking cigarettes to more than 2 million diagnoses of cancer between 2001 and 2004 in the U.S.

Today is the American Cancer Society’s 34^th annual Great American Smokeout, and in an effort to get more Americans to stop smoking, they offer the following resources: visit the ACS webpage for tips on how to quit for good, or call the ACS Quitline at (800) 227-2345. According to Tom Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at ACS, phone counseling can double the chances of a smoker’s quitting success.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Prevention, Early Detection and Good Health

Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:59 GMT

A new study released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force has women and doctors confused and torn over recent recommendations regarding what age a woman should receive annual mammograms.

For years, the American Cancer Society, physicians, and other government organizations, have recommended that women receive annual mammograms at the age of 40 to prevent breast cancer, which seemingly aided in the early detection of the disease. Now, the task force, a government panel of doctors and scientists, are recommending that most women wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years. The study states that beginning to test for breast cancer at age 40 saves few lives and can even harm patients. They point out that if a mammogram gives a false positive, it can lead to anxiety, unnecessary additional testing and biopsies, and exposure to radiation. Mammograms typically produce false-positives in about 10 percent of cases.

Opponents disagree and feel that these new guidelines will only confuse and scare women from seeking the recommended testing. The American Cancer Society posted a statement on its website stating that it would continue to recommend annual screening for all women, beginning at age 40. “It (the guideline) is very confusing and that’s one of the things we’re worried about is that women are already confused, scared, and worried about getting a mammogram because of what they may find out,” said American Cancer Society spokesperson Mary Kathryn Walker.

Breast cancer survivors are also angry about the new guidelines saying that if they didn’t receive mammograms in their 40’s, they wouldn’t be alive today. The American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change saying the benefits of routine mammograms have been clearly demonstrated and continue to play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and deaths. Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women.

The task force guidelines don’t apply to women at high risk for breast cancer, including those with genetic mutations that make them more susceptible to the disease.

Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says “We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.”

The task force’s guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams, something that that American Cancer Society has been touting for years. The practice was so heavily promoted at one time that the organization distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps. Recently, the American Cancer Society and other medical groups have backed off promoting breast self-exams because of scant evidence of their effectiveness, even before the new task force guidelines were revealed.

Insurance companies are claiming that coverage will not likely change because of the task force guidelines. In the past, the guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, has influenced the stance Medicare and many insurance companies take on healthcare coverage. Opponents of the new guidelines fear that the findings could spur insurers to deny coverage of annual mammograms and breast tests given to women under 50. “Screening isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing we have and it works,” says Dr. Carol Lee, a spokesperson for the American College of Radiology. She also suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the recent decision, but task force vice chairman Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

Whether or not you believe women’s health is again under fire, it is important to know your family medical history and routine visits to your doctor are your best tools against any type of disease, including cancer. The new task force guidelines are just that, guidelines. Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits. These new guidelines will hopefully help spur conversations and assist women in making the best decision for their personal circumstances.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes

Delay in Diagnosis : Failure to Timely Diagnose Ovarian Cancer Leads to Death of Young Mother

Jean Martin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:05:47 GMT

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of death due to cancer in women in the United States. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any other gynecological cancer. In 2005, almost 20,000 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and almost 15,000 died from the disease. What an alarming statistic! As a result of these rates, the Center for Disease Control has an ongoing project to raise awareness in doctors of ovarian cancer screening and testing practices.

Unfortunately for Ann Seneriches and her family, these efforts came too late. Despite six ultrasounds during her pregnancy that revealed a large mass in Ms. Seneriches’ right ovary, none of the obstetricians she saw referred her to an oncologist and none performed surgery to explore the mass. No follow up was ordered for after the delivery either. Six months later when Ms. Seneriches went to the emergency room complaining of a severely distended abdomen, she was diagnosed with Stage III ovarian cancer. She died two months later leaving behind her husband and newborn son.

Thankfully a Los Angeles jury agreed that Ms. Seneriches’ doctors were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and properly treat, failing to perform surgery, failing to refer her to an oncologist for further evaluation and simply failing to evaluate the mass.

Symptoms of ovarian cancer include pressure or fullness in the pelvis, bloating, abdominal swelling or increase in abdominal size, abdominal bleeding, pain during intercourse, low back pain, and changes in bowel or bladder patterns that persist or worsen. Women having these symptoms for more than a few weeks should consult their doctor. And if you are not getting relief from the prescribed treatment, go back for a follow-up visit. If the doctor doesn’t take your symptoms seriously, particularly if you have a family history of cancer, go to someone else for a second opinion.

The negligence of these doctors led to the worst case scenario for Ann Seneriches and her family. I cannot imagine the heartbreak that they are going through. I applaud the efforts of the CDC to spread the word to doctors about ovarian cancer, as it is quite evident that more education is needed in this regard.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin