Aaron
10-07-2008, 12:44 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cancer-victim-sues-over-breast-check/2008/10/07/1223145329149.html
A Sydney woman is suing for damages after breast cancer screening failed to detect that she had the disease.
In a case that could have significant ramifications for cancer screening across the country, Christine Ann O'Gorman, 57, is suing the Sydney South-West Area Health Service after radiologists at its free Breast Screen service allegedly interpreted her mammogram incorrectly.
Ms O'Gorman, a single mother from Moorebank, was not diagnosed with breast cancer until January 2007, after she felt a lump in her left breast while on holidays.
A 2004 mammogram was considered by a radiologist as normal, when it instead showed two rounded masses in her left breast, a statement of claim tendered to the NSW Supreme Court alleged.
As doctors prepared Ms O'Gorman for a mastectomy, a CT scan revealed she had developed lung tumours and later, further tests revealed, brain tumours.
"What the plaintiff faces is an abysmal prospect of a greatly shortened life expectancy," Ms O'Gorman's barrister Tony Bartley, SC, told the court. "She will not recover from the cancers which she has suffered."
Had the breast cancer been identified in 2004, it would have been considered "stage one", an early detection, Mr Bartley said. "A mammogram that she had in 2006 would have been considered a "stage two," he said.
However, when Ms O'Gorman was ultimately diagnosed, her breast cancer had grown to stage three.
He said the brain tumours were a result of the breast cancer spreading, a claim that is denied by the defendants.
The court heard Ms O'Gorman had her breasts checked by Breast Screen almost every two years since 1994.
Mr Bartley said performance standards developed about 2004 dictated that no more than 5 per cent of women should be recalled for second screenings.
He said that radiologists who have since looked at Ms O'Gorman's 2006 screening said it showed "sufficient abnormalities to warrant a recall".
The hearing continues.
Thought I'd use this article to start discussion on litigation. Is this fair? What are people's thoughts?
A Sydney woman is suing for damages after breast cancer screening failed to detect that she had the disease.
In a case that could have significant ramifications for cancer screening across the country, Christine Ann O'Gorman, 57, is suing the Sydney South-West Area Health Service after radiologists at its free Breast Screen service allegedly interpreted her mammogram incorrectly.
Ms O'Gorman, a single mother from Moorebank, was not diagnosed with breast cancer until January 2007, after she felt a lump in her left breast while on holidays.
A 2004 mammogram was considered by a radiologist as normal, when it instead showed two rounded masses in her left breast, a statement of claim tendered to the NSW Supreme Court alleged.
As doctors prepared Ms O'Gorman for a mastectomy, a CT scan revealed she had developed lung tumours and later, further tests revealed, brain tumours.
"What the plaintiff faces is an abysmal prospect of a greatly shortened life expectancy," Ms O'Gorman's barrister Tony Bartley, SC, told the court. "She will not recover from the cancers which she has suffered."
Had the breast cancer been identified in 2004, it would have been considered "stage one", an early detection, Mr Bartley said. "A mammogram that she had in 2006 would have been considered a "stage two," he said.
However, when Ms O'Gorman was ultimately diagnosed, her breast cancer had grown to stage three.
He said the brain tumours were a result of the breast cancer spreading, a claim that is denied by the defendants.
The court heard Ms O'Gorman had her breasts checked by Breast Screen almost every two years since 1994.
Mr Bartley said performance standards developed about 2004 dictated that no more than 5 per cent of women should be recalled for second screenings.
He said that radiologists who have since looked at Ms O'Gorman's 2006 screening said it showed "sufficient abnormalities to warrant a recall".
The hearing continues.
Thought I'd use this article to start discussion on litigation. Is this fair? What are people's thoughts?