Plaintiff’s decedent, was a long time patient of the defendant, an OBGYN, who had been he decedent’s doctor for more than ten years. Since on or about December 1, 1994, plaintiff was a patient of the defendant, who provided medical care, including routine gynecological care. During such routine gynecological care, defendant found a cyst on plaintiff’s left ovary and on or about December 20, 1994, the defendant performed a EUA, laparoscopy, pelvic washings, left ovarian cystectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
While a patient of defendant, the plaintiff presented with a history of borderline ovarian tumor. As part of her follow-up care to that surgery, defendant conducted yearly CA 125 blood tests, which measures the amount of the protein AC 125 (cancer antigen 125) in one’s blood and is the most frequently used biomarker for ovarian cancer detection.
On or about May, 2009, the defendant told the plaintiff that she no longer needed regular CA 125 testing, and as such, he discontinued doing said CA 125 test. On or about March 27, 2010, a transvaginal examination ordered by defendant revealed a large complex left adnexal cystic lesion of the left ovary. On or about November 11, 2010, a CA 125 blood test ordered by defendant revealed a value of 423, which is a highly elevated level. On or about November 19, 2010, an MRI of the abdomen ordered by defendant revealed findings, among other things, that it is “suspicious for metastatic ovary carcinoma.” On or about November 19, 2010, a MRI of the pelvis ordered by defendant revealed findings, among other things, that “there is strongly suggestion of left ovarian mass,” with findings “highly suspicious for ovarian carcinoma with peritoneal implants.” Additionally, the intra-abdominal findings are “highly suspicious for metastatic implants from the left ovary.”
Both MRIs taken on or about November 19, 2010, strongly recommended surgical biopsy. On or about December 2, 2010, a diagnostic and therapeutic paracentesis on the plaintiff and the cytology results indicated an adenocarcinoma of ovarian origin. On or about May 10, 2011, the plaintiff underwent a total hysterectomy. On or about May 10, 2011, the plaintiff underwent a splenectomy.
On or about August 11, 2011, after the completion of chemotherapy, the plaintiff was advised that she was in remission and that no further treatment was indicated. On or about March, 2012, the cancer returned.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant deviated from the standard of cre by failing to advise the plaintiff properly about her high risk of recurrence of her BOT due to her having had only having conservative surgery in for form of a cystectomy; by failing to inform the plaintiff of the interoperative cyst rupture in December, 1994 and October 1995, which increased her risk of having a recurrence’ by failing to discuss with the plaintiff about the need for TAH and LSO after 1994-1995; by failing to rigorously perform annual CA-125 levels and sonograms and follow up when these tests were not done; and by failing to order CA 124 levers from early 2010, all of which would have led to an early diagnose, early treatment of cancer that the likelihood of a better outcome. The case settled for a low seven-figure amount.
