Summary:
A 50-year-old man, who was being monitored for liver cancer recurrence, underwent a radical and unnecessary surgery that resulted in the removal of five of his organs. Despite a biopsy, PET scan, and multiple MRIs indicating the abdominal mass was likely non-cancerous inflammation, a multidisciplinary team at a major hospital insisted on immediate surgery, claiming the mass was a “fast-growing” threat. Legal discovery later revealed that the hospital withheld information showing the mass had actually begun to shrink before the operation, a clear sign it was not the aggressive cancer they suspected. The case was eventually settled after expert evidence confirmed that the surgical intervention was premature and negligent.
Key Points:
- Disregard for Diagnostic Evidence: The hospital proceeded with radical surgery despite negative biopsies and PET scans that pointed to an inflammatory process rather than malignancy.
- Failure to Attempt Conservative Treatment: Experts argued that the hospital should have first attempted a trial of steroids to reduce inflammation, which would likely have saved the patient’s organs.
- Concealment of Vital Data: Discovery of hospital records revealed that the “tumour” had decreased in size in the month leading up to surgery, a fact the clinical team failed to disclose to the patient.
Case Details:
The client, a man in his early 50s with a history of liver cancer, was under routine surveillance when a new mass was detected in his abdomen. Over a six-month monitoring period, the hospital’s multidisciplinary team became convinced the mass was a highly aggressive, fast-growing cancer. They pressured the client into surgery, telling him he would die without it. However, every diagnostic tool used, including a biopsy, a PET scan, and various MRIs, returned negative results for cancer, instead suggesting the mass was an inflammatory process.
Despite these results, the surgical team performed a massive resection, removing his right kidney, right ureter, right colon, terminal ileum (the junction of the small and large intestines), and gallbladder. Post-operative pathology confirmed that none of the removed organs contained cancer. The “mass” was indeed just inflamed tissue.
The Carbone Lawyers Medical Negligence team uncovered evidence during discovery that the hospital had measured the mass’s shrinkage in the weeks prior to the operation. Had the medical team acted on this information or simply attempted a trial of steroids, the entire surgery could have been avoided. The hospital defended its actions by claiming a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario, arguing they would have been sued for negligence had they not operated, and the mass turned out to be cancer.
Outcome:
The matter proceeded to two rounds of mediation. The defence’s position weakened significantly once the legal team presented the scan reports obtained in discovery, which showed the hospital ignored the mass’s shrinking dimensions. The case eventually settled for a sum in the vicinity of half a million dollars.
