Acoustic Neuroma Lawsuits

[arizonajack]

Count on me to find this stuff on the internet.

The following article appeared in the West Virginia Record (West Virginia's Legal Journal).


Couple sues physician for medical malpractice

July 10, 2012 12:53 PM
By Kyla Asbury

CHARLESTON — A couple is suing a physician they claim failed to adequately investigate hearing loss.
 
Crigger & Associates ENT, PLLC was also named as a defendant in the suit.
 
Beginning in January 2008, Dr. Charles D. Crigger began seeing Daniel Rainey for hearing loss complaints, according to a complaint filed June 18 in Kanawha Circuit Court.
 
Rainey claims Crigger performed at least three audiograms which noted nerve loss hearing in his left ear.
 
Despite the findings, Crigger failed to adequately investigate Rainey’s asymmetrical hearing loss, according to the suit.
 
Rainey claims more than two years later, he suffered an acute event resulting in a complete hearing loss and an MRI was performed, which resulted in a diagnosis of a large acoustic neuroma.
 
Surgery was performed to remove the acoustic neuroma and as a result of the neuroma being too large and because of the type of surgery that was performed, Rainey suffers from a visible facial drop, has cognitive defects because the removal of part of his brain and has no hearing in his left ear, according to the suit.
 
Rainey claims had Crigger appropriately investigated the asymmetrical hearing loss, the standard of care of a timely referral could have been made and treatment of the neuroma could have been done.
 
The defendants delay in diagnosis and treatment caused Rainey to suffer permanent nerve damage, according to the suit.
 
Rainey and his wife, Lori Rainey, are seeking compensatory damages with pre-judgment interest. They are being represented by Arden J. Curry.
 
The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Louis H. Bloom.
 
Case number: 12-C-1136


The Circuit Court website does not have an online case search feature. If anybody lives in Charleston, WV and is curious enough to visit the courthouse and check the case file, it would be interesting to get a report on the progress of lawsuit

Apparently, this type of lawsuit is rare as I only found mention of one other.


Consequences of Misdiagnosis : Unrecognized Acoustic Neuroma (Vestibular Schwannoma) in MRI.
 
Summary
 
This report concerns a 43-year-old male plumber with relapsing acute hearing loss on the right side and vertiginous attacks. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed twice after otolaryngology and neurological examinations over an interval of 2 months and according to the reports no evidence of an acoustic neuroma was found. Approximately 2 years later a right-sided hourglass-shaped acoustic neuroma 4Â mm in diameter was diagnosed with MRI located in the vestibule and the fundus of the internal auditory canal. In retrospect it had also been visible on the earlier MRI. The tumor was resected via the labyrinth and the diagnosis of a vestibular schwannoma was confirmed histologically. The patient brought a lawsuit against the radiologist who carried out both previous MRI examinations with the wrong interpretation. The lawsuit terminated in a settlement between the parties after presentation of the neuroradiological expert opinion.
 
Affiliation
 
Abteilung für Neuroradiologie, Institut und Poliklinik für Radiologische Diagnostik, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
 
Journal Details
 
Name: Clinical neuroradiology
ISSN: 1869-1447


Looks like that one's in Germany.

[ewchisek]

Interesting! I did initially think I could sue the hospital for misdiagnosis, but was told otherwise. I think several of us on were misdiagnosed in the beginning, or at least I'm no the only one. It does make me sad though, because I feel if would of persisted more, my tumor would of been found earlier enough to save some of my perfect hearing
 

[mandy721]

Many, many  people are misdiagnosed!

[arizonajack]

Interesting! I did initially think I could sue the hospital for misdiagnosis, but was told otherwise.

Told by who?

And why?

If a medical malpractice attorney thoroughly evaluated the history and gave it thumbs down it was either because there was no medical negligence or the monetary damages were not enough to be worth pursuing.

I think several of us on were misdiagnosed in the beginning, or at least I'm no the only one.

Many, many  people are misdiagnosed!

Misdiagnosis might be due to medical negligence or it might not. Depends on the circumstances.

It does make me sad though, because I feel if would of persisted more, my tumor would of been found earlier enough to save some of my perfect hearing

I think that's a common feeling among all of us.

[MDemisay]

Arizonajack,


You're kidding right?

  A long time ago (1992) I went to my PCP with what I thought was "swimmers ear" in my left ear he told me to have drops in my ear which didn't relieve anything. Later, my first  audiology consult was arranged and instead of waiting for the proper tests, I was given an expensive hearing aide which improved my hearing temporarily until I lost that expensive hearing aide (and had to have a CT scan in 2004 (attempting to obtain another). The second audiologist sat me down and diagnosed that I had an AN. Which I had subtotally removed in 2004 (see below). Then according to a prearranged plan after learning that I had a regrowth, I made the decision to have radiation in 2012. This is a final chapter to the AN story (which my neurologist tells me that might have been in existence since 1970) when I was being treated (radiation) for my AVM's which was standard procedure until my neurologist Dr. Michelsen advised my parents that a life saving 12 hour operation had to be done(1974).

Unlike some I do not want to bring up this chapter in my life again, I suppose I could sue somebody but then again that would cause me to bring this all up again causing stress to me and my family, and a whole lot of missed days at work and a lot of lawyer time. Best not to gum up the works (in court) with what would be at this point in my life a "frivolous lawsuit"! Too late!


I would discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits and unless you can prove it, again involving medical opinions pro and con, and a lot of time on your part and a lot of hurt feelings and many years of time.


Believe me, in 1995 I sued an upstate hotel for what was a simple slip and fall open and shut case.......Do you know that I had to wait 7 years for a measly thousand dollars? It involved a whole lot of time, I could not go back to work for 3 months (broke 3 ribs) and left me with a bad taste for lawyers.

I would advise avoiding going to court at all costs. I have better things to do with my time, like enjoy it!.

Mike

[Jim Scott]

By the time my symptoms become bad enough to drive me to see a doctor my AN was huge (4.5 cm) and diagnosis (via MRI) was instant and unequivocal.

However, some AN patients waste a lot of precious time and money with ENT physicians that insist on treating the ear and seem to ignore AN symptoms, sometimes only ordering an MRI when the patient insists or because they have run out of supposed remedies for the 'ear problem'.  I've always thought that was a form of malpractice but difficult to prove and likely closer to incompetence than malpractice.  Frankly, I hate the way our tort system has become a playground for rapacious attorneys and their clients trying to squeeze money out of insurance companies on sometimes flimsy evidence and lawyers dramatic appeals to jurors emotions.  Of course, if a doctor is presumed to have been negligent, not simply incompetent and/or uninformed about acoustic neuromas, monetary damages are due considering delayed AN diagnosis can cost the patient their hearing and a greater risk of post-op problems that may have been avoided with an early diagnosis as in the West Virginia case cited.  Obviously, these things are situational and one size does not fit all.  This is why we suggest seeing a qualified neurosuregon when an acoustic neuroma is suspected or at least insist that your ENT or PCP order an MRI. 

When I presented my symptoms my PCP ordered one without hesitation and so my AN was discovered just in time to prevent serious consequences.  It was pressing hard on my brain stem.  My neurosurgeon was shocked that I was still able to function relatively normally.  I had debulking surgery within 3 weeks, follow-up FSR 90 days later.  All went well - no problems.

Jim

[chloes mema]

When I was diagnosed my neurotologist looked at a brain MRI I had taken in 2008 for a totally different issue.  He pointed to a tiny spot then said there it is!  It was there in 2008 but because "they" weren't looking for it no one mentioned it.  Go figure.

So now it is what it is and like Mike, I can't see wasting time, money, and effort.  Unfortunately, this probably happens more often than not but doctors, techs, nurses etc are only people.

For me, I'm glad my AN was finally diagnosed then radiated now I just hope it's on it's merry way to being dead and not resurrecting itself.

Karen

[Kathleen_Mc]

I myself have been told by physician's I have seen along the way, since diagnosis and surgery, to sue the  first neurologist I was seen by and whom had misdiagnosed me @ age ?17 ,however here in Canada malpractice suits are more difficult to win, so I understand, so I never looked into it. This inital neurologist labelled me as psychosomatic without benefit of CT or MRI and in fact even put in his note I was "too young" to consider neoplasm......it was based on this my GP carried on giving me pain killers and sleeping pills for a few years without questioning....hence allowing the bugger to get bigger! As it turns out this neurologist is a real quack and since lost his licence for other reasons  (just a suspension though).....this being said when these other doctor's say "you should sue him" I ask if they will testify on my side in court and......I am always met with silence. It is apparently very hard to get one doctor to testify against another and from what I understand this is what makes it so hard to win a malpractice suit here in Canada.
Did I ever REALLY want to revisit this issue to go through a court? no not really would I have liked the cash? HELL yeah! Could I afford the lawyers fee's if I lost? no!

[Jim Scott]

I myself have been told by physician's I have seen along the way, since diagnosis and surgery, to sue the  first neurologist I was seen by and whom had misdiagnosed me @ age ?17 ,however here in Canada malpractice suits are more difficult to win, so I understand, so I never looked into it. This inital neurologist labelled me as psychosomatic without benefit of CT or MRI and in fact even put in his note I was "too young" to consider neoplasm......it was based on this my GP carried on giving me pain killers and sleeping pills for a few years without questioning....hence allowing the bugger to get bigger! As it turns out this neurologist is a real quack and since lost his licence for other reasons  (just a suspension though).....this being said when these other doctor's say "you should sue him" I ask if they will testify on my side in court and......I am always met with silence. It is apparently very hard to get one doctor to testify against another and from what I understand this is what makes it so hard to win a malpractice suit here in Canada.
Did I ever REALLY want to revisit this issue to go through a court? no not really would I have liked the cash? HELL yeah! Could I afford the lawyers fee's if I lost? no!

Kathleen ~

To the best of my knowledge, at least in the U.S., attorneys that take civil cases usually do so on a 'contingency fee' basis.  That is, you contractually agree that the attorney will receive a portion (often a third) of any monetary settlement of the case.  You still have to pay court costs and filing fees but that doesn't come to more than a few hundred dollars in most cases.  However, you are correct in that doctors are very reluctant to testify against one another and the reasons are obvious.  A doctor, especially today in the litigious environment we live in, knows he/she is vulnerable to lawsuits that can (a) cost him his license or make him unable to buy malpractice insurance and damage his reputation in the medical community, all because he didn't order a test or made a judgement call that proved to be wrong.  In short, doctors look at another doctor on trial for malpractice and think 'that could be my livelihood on trial'.  With that in mind, a doctor is very, very hesitant to testify against another physician and so, malpractice cases are, as you noted, difficult to win.  That is why an attorney usually won't consider taking such a case unless the evidence is very strong and the doctors' malpractice was egregious.   

Jim