Yes, you are able to sue a radiologist for misreading test results if their error fell below the accepted "standard of care" and directly caused you harm.
However, a misread scan is not automatically grounds for a lawsuit. The core of a medical malpractice case rests on proving two points.
First, that the radiologist’s interpretation was an error that a reasonably competent radiologist in the same field would not have made.
Second, you must show this specific failure led to a delayed diagnosis, incorrect treatment, or a worsened condition, resulting in tangible harm.
Proving this requires a detailed review of medical records and testimony from other medical professionals. Pennsylvania law allows you to pursue compensation for the medical costs, lost income, and the personal suffering caused by such an error. You have rights, and there is a way to hold negligent parties accountable.
If you believe a misread test result has harmed you or a loved one, call Wapner Newman for a free consultation to discuss your situation. Our phone number is (800) 529-6600.
What Turns a Radiologist’s Mistake into Medical Malpractice?
Many people think any mistake by a doctor qualifies as malpractice. However, the law draws a clear line between an understandable human error and professional negligence.
This distinction is frustrating. You know your health has suffered because of a mistake on a report, but you may worry it won't meet the strict legal definition required to build a case. You might be asking, "How serious does the error have to be?"
The answer lies in a legal concept called the "standard of care." Think of it like the rules of the road for radiologists. The standard of care is the set of unwritten rules that a careful, qualified radiologist is expected to follow when interpreting a scan. Medical malpractice occurs when a radiologist’s conduct falls below this standard. The standard is about demonstrating a baseline level of professional competence, not achieving a perfect outcome every time.
Examples of errors that typically fall below the standard of care include:
- Perception Error: This happens when a radiologist fails to see an obvious abnormality on a scan, like a tumor or fracture, that another competent radiologist would have identified.
- Interpretation Error: In this case, the radiologist sees the abnormality but misidentifies it. For instance, they might label a malignant tumor as a benign cyst, leading to a dangerous delay in treatment.
- Communication Failure: This involves failing to properly or urgently communicate significant findings to the treating physician, which is just as damaging as a misread itself.
Our role is to work with highly qualified medical professionals to analyze your scans and records to determine if the radiologist’s actions deviated from this accepted standard of care.
What Are the Most Common Types of Radiology Errors That Lead to Lawsuits?
While any type of misread causes significant harm, certain errors appear more frequently in malpractice claims. In fact, diagnostic errors are the basis for over 75% of medical malpractice claims filed against radiologists.
Some of the most common and damaging errors include:
- Missed Cancer Diagnoses: A faint shadow on a chest X-ray is dismissed as an artifact but is later found to be lung cancer. A mammogram is read as normal, delaying a breast cancer diagnosis and allowing the disease to spread. These are unfortunately common scenarios.
- Failure to Identify Fractures: An emergency room patient’s X-ray is misread as a simple sprain when it was actually a complex fracture requiring immediate surgery. This is a persistent issue, with studies showing that radiology lawsuits typically involve emergency department cases.
- Ignoring Vascular Issues: A radiologist fails to spot the signs of a stroke, aneurysm, or pulmonary embolism on a CT scan or MRI. The failure to identify and report these conditions leads to catastrophic injury or death.
- Errors in Pediatric Radiology: Misinterpreting a child's scan is particularly challenging, as developing anatomy sometimes mimics disease. An error here leads to incorrect treatment or a missed diagnosis of a serious congenital condition.
What Do You Need to Prove in a Lawsuit Against a Radiologist in Pennsylvania?
In Pennsylvania, a successful medical malpractice claim requires proving four specific elements. Think of them as four pillars that must all be standing for your case to be successful.
- Duty: This is the easiest pillar to establish. When a radiologist agrees to interpret your scan, they automatically create a doctor-patient relationship. This means they owe you a professional duty to provide competent care.
- Breach of Duty: This is the central challenge of the case. We must show that the radiologist’s performance breached the standard of care. Under Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, we are generally required to file a "Certificate of Merit." Simply put, this is a document signed by a qualified medical professional in the same field who has reviewed your case and states there is a reasonable probability the radiologist’s care fell outside accepted standards.
- Causation: It’s not enough to show the radiologist made a mistake. We must draw a direct line from that mistake to your injury. For example, we need to demonstrate that the six-month delay in diagnosing your cancer allowed it to progress from Stage I to Stage III, which in turn required more aggressive treatments and resulted in a poorer prognosis.
- Damages: Finally, you must have suffered actual harm that is measured in monetary terms. This includes both the financial and the human costs of the error.
What Kind of Compensation Could Be Available?
If we successfully prove all four elements, you may be able to recover compensation, which the law refers to as "damages." These damages are intended to help you manage the financial burdens of the injury and compensate you for the personal toll it has taken on your life. Pennsylvania law does not place a cap on most forms of damages in medical malpractice cases.
Compensation is generally broken down into two categories:
- Economic Damages: These are for tangible, calculable financial losses. This includes all personal injury–related medical bills (past and future), lost wages from being unable to work, diminished earning capacity, and the cost of any necessary long-term care or rehabilitation.
- Non-Economic Damages: This is compensation for the human cost of the injury. It is meant to address your physical pain and suffering, emotional distress, scarring or disfigurement, and the loss of enjoyment of life.
Frequently Asked Questions About Radiology Malpractice Claims
How long do I have to file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania?
Generally, Pennsylvania has a two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims. However, the "discovery rule" may extend this deadline. This rule states that the two-year clock doesn't start until the date you knew—or reasonably should have known—that you were injured by the misread.
Do I have to pay a lawyer upfront?
No. At Wapner Newman, we handle these cases on a contingency fee basis. This means you pay us nothing unless and until we recover compensation for you.
Will my case go to trial?
It is possible, but most cases don’t. The vast majority are resolved through a settlement agreement between the parties.
What if the radiologist says it was just a difference of opinion?
This is a common defense tactic. The key is not whether another radiologist could have a different opinion, but whether the initial reading was one that a reasonably competent radiologist should not have made. This is precisely what we work to establish with compelling testimony from highly-credentialed medical professionals.
Take the First Step Toward Clarity
You don’t need to have all the answers to make the first call. We understand the medicine and the law, and we regularly help families across Pennsylvania in these difficult situations. If you’re ready to learn about your options, we’re here to listen.
Call Wapner Newman today at (800) 529-6600 for a free, no-obligation case review.