.png)
Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory and Partner Samantha E. Shaw secured Summary Judgment for MCB’s clients– an Oncologist and a Hospital, in a case alleging failure to monitor for cancer recurrence, resulting in a delayed diagnosis of incurable Stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The plaintiff also asserted claims for lack of informed consent, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring/supervision.
The Plaintiff began treatment with MCB’s clients in 2013 for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following a small bowel resection. He received PET/CT imaging and R-CHOP chemotherapy. A 2014post-treatment scan showed no evidence of disease. From 2014 to 2019, the plaintiff attended follow-ups with decreasing frequency. At each visit, the oncologist performed physical exams, lab work, and addressed non-specific symptoms including fatigue, neuropathy, and bowel issues. By the final October2019 visit, there was no clinical evidence of recurrence, and the plaintiff was referred to his PCP and other specialists to address the non-specific complaints.
In January 2020,the plaintiff’s PCP documented the plaintiff’s complaints and referred him for a second oncology opinion. Ultimately, the plaintiff was referred for imaging, which led to a diagnosis of metastatic RCC. The plaintiff alleged MCB’s clients failed to perform post-chemotherapy surveillance images despite his complaints and repeated requests for imaging.
MCB moved for Summary Judgment, supported by an oncology expert, arguing that the oncologist appropriately monitored for lymphoma recurrence, RCC was unrelated, and imaging was not indicated in the absence of specific signs of recurrence. MCB also argued that physicians are not liable for failing to detect unrelated conditions incidentally.
MCB further contended that informed consent was obtained for the R-CHOP, not required for routine follow-up, and that vicarious liability was inapplicable as the doctor was nota hospital employee. There was no evidence supporting negligent hiring or supervision.
The plaintiff’s expert claimed periodic surveillance imaging was required to monitor lymphoma and would have revealed RCC at a curable stage. The Court rejected this theory and granted Summary Judgment, finding MCB’s clients met the standard of care and could not be held liable for an alleged failure to detect an unrelated condition.