Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice cases involving delayed cancer diagnoses often present difficult questions regarding causation, timing, and the impact of missed opportunities for treatment. When healthcare providers fail to order appropriate testing or recognize warning signs of a serious condition, patients may lose valuable time during which a disease remains more treatable. A recent Maryland decision addressed whether a patient could proceed with claims arising from an alleged delay in diagnosing parotid gland cancer. If you believe a healthcare provider failed to diagnose a serious illness in a timely manner, you should speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.
Factual and Procedural Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff sought medical care after experiencing swelling, tenderness, and pain in the area near the right ear. The plaintiff had a history of thyroid cancer and underwent diagnostic evaluation, including imaging studies. Although certain abnormalities were identified, the plaintiff contended that healthcare providers failed to pursue an adequate oncological workup to determine whether cancer was present.<
Reportedly, one defendant physician evaluated the plaintiff in 2019 and attributed the symptoms to other conditions rather than parotid gland cancer. According to the plaintiff, the physician did not order additional diagnostic testing, such as a PET scan, MRI, or ultrasound, nor did the physician discuss the potential need for such studies. The plaintiff maintained that the applicable standard of care required further investigation.
It is alleged that the plaintiff continued to experience symptoms and later underwent additional testing. In 2022, healthcare providers discovered a mass that was ultimately diagnosed as adenoid cystic carcinoma. By the time of diagnosis, the plaintiff’s experts contended that the cancer had progressed to Stage III disease, requiring extensive treatment and creating a substantially worse prognosis than would have existed if the condition had been identified earlier.
It is reported that the plaintiff filed suit against multiple healthcare providers and medical entities, asserting negligence, lack of informed consent, and related claims. Following discovery, certain defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish causation and that the statute of limitations barred the claims.
Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Medical Malpractice Cases
The court focused primarily on whether the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of causation to allow the negligence claims to proceed. Under Maryland law, a medical malpractice plaintiff must establish duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation. The defendants argued that the plaintiff could not prove that additional testing in 2019 would have resulted in an earlier diagnosis or a better outcome.
The court carefully reviewed the competing expert opinions. The plaintiff’s experts maintained that the standard of care required additional diagnostic studies and that such testing would likely have identified the cancer before it progressed to a more advanced stage. The experts further opined that earlier diagnosis would have improved the plaintiff’s prognosis and reduced the likelihood of metastasis, recurrence, and death.
The defendants contended that other events broke the chain of causation, including insurance issues that prevented earlier testing and subsequent interpretations of imaging studies that failed to identify cancer. The court rejected the argument that these issues automatically defeated the plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. Instead, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the physician’s alleged failure to order appropriate testing was a substantial factor contributing to the delayed diagnosis.
The court also determined that disputes concerning intervening negligence, competing expert opinions, and the significance of later imaging studies were factual questions appropriately resolved by a jury rather than through summary judgment. Because the record contained evidence supporting the plaintiff’s theory of causation, the court concluded that the negligence claims should proceed to trial.
While the court granted summary judgment on the informed consent claim, it denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and loss-of-consortium claims. As a result, the plaintiff retained the opportunity to present those allegations to a jury.
Speak with a Dedicated Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney About Delayed Diagnosis Claims
A delayed cancer diagnosis can dramatically affect treatment options, prognosis, and quality of life. If you or a loved one suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to recognize warning signs of a serious condition, the dedicated Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can evaluate your circumstances and advise you regarding potential claims. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or contact the firm through its online form to schedule a confidential and free consultation.