Failure-to-diagnose claims arise when the relevant practitioner did not identify the patient’s condition at all. The condition may have been later diagnosed by a different practitioner, on a subsequent visit, or only at the point at which complications made the underlying problem unavoidable. The category is distinct from delayed diagnosis (where the correct diagnosis was eventually reached, but too late to prevent harm) and from misdiagnosis (where a different and wrong diagnosis was made).
Common contexts include cancer (where suspicious lesions or test results were not investigated), cardiac and vascular emergencies (where chest pain, weakness, or limb symptoms were not recognized), neurological emergencies (where headache, sensory loss, or weakness was not investigated), and infectious processes (where sepsis or appendicitis was not identified). The standard of care analysis in a failure-to-diagnose case typically focuses on what a reasonable practitioner in the same circumstances would have considered in the differential diagnosis, what investigations they would have ordered, and what further history they would have taken. The causation analysis typically focuses on what difference earlier diagnosis would have made to the outcome.
Posts tagged Failure to Diagnose analyze Ontario decisions involving a complete failure to identify a clinical condition that should have been recognized, across multiple specialties.
Paul Cahill settled a laboratory negligence claim where a failure to properly test tuberculosis susceptibilities led to vertebral collapse and spinal surgery.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.