Philadelphia Jury Awards $35M in Hysterectomy Misdiagnosis

A Philadelphia jury’s $35 million medical malpractice verdict has focused renewed attention on how hospitals handle conflicting diagnostic information before recommending irreversible treatment. The case involved Isis Spencer, a 45-year-old woman who underwent a full hysterectomy after being told she had advanced endometrial cancer, only to learn post-surgery that she never had cancer. The jury allocated $12.25 million of the award to Penn Medicine and a physician associated with her care, while Main Line Health resolved its share through an earlier, undisclosed settlement. The dispute centered on how clinicians responded to discordant biopsy results and whether additional verification steps were required before proceeding with major surgery.

Conflicting Pathology Results and the Decision to Operate

According to the complaint, Spencer’s diagnostic course began with testing at Main Line Health, where biopsy slides were allegedly contaminated with another patient’s DNA. That lab error produced a report indicating advanced endometrial cancer despite Spencer not having cancer. After receiving those results, Spencer sought an additional opinion at Penn Medicine. At Penn, a second biopsy was reportedly negative, and court filings described testing there as showing no signs of malignancy and as “within normal limits.” The case therefore presented a central question in diagnostic malpractice litigation: how providers should reconcile inconsistent pathology findings when the recommended intervention is life-altering and time-sensitive.

Spencer alleged that, notwithstanding the conflicting results, she was encouraged to proceed with surgery and that the Penn physician advanced a diagnosis consistent with the erroneous outside pathology. The complaint further asserted that she was told immediate surgery was her only practical option and that additional testing that could have explained the discrepancy was not pursued. The timeline described in the pleadings indicates that Spencer met the physician in early 2021 and underwent a full hysterectomy the following month at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, making the period for reassessment and confirmatory testing a focal issue for evaluating the standard of care.

Trial Findings and Allocation of the $35 Million Verdict

The jury returned a total verdict of $35 million, assigning Penn Medicine and one of its physicians responsibility for $12.25 million. Main Line Health’s prior settlement removed it from the trial’s final allocation, but the suit’s narrative placed the initial catalyst at Main Line through the alleged DNA contamination of biopsy slides. The jury’s allocation suggests it credited a theory of shared causation in which the initial laboratory error did not end the analysis and where later clinical decision-making contributed independently to the harm. In malpractice cases involving diagnostic conflicts, jurors often evaluate whether clinicians took reasonable steps to verify outside pathology, obtain re-cuts or repeat sampling, or consult pathology in a way that addresses discordant results before recommending definitive treatment.

Penn Medicine indicated it plans to appeal. A spokesperson stated that the verdict did not align with the evidence presented at trial and that the physician relied on pathology results generated outside the Penn system without knowledge that the slides were contaminated. The jury nevertheless concluded that actions taken at Penn played a direct role in the outcome, reflecting a litigation risk that can arise when a treating team proceeds on a working diagnosis that is not reconciled with internal testing that points in a different direction.

Harm, Damages, and Broader System Implications

Postoperative findings were a critical component of the damages narrative. After the hysterectomy, Spencer’s removed tissue reportedly showed no signs of cancer, and the suit alleged she learned that the surgery was unnecessary only after the operation. The complaint described substantial physical and emotional consequences, including sudden early menopause and symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, and severe headaches. Beyond physical sequelae, the pleadings emphasized the psychological impact of believing she had cancer and then receiving the contrary news after irreversible treatment, an element that frequently drives non-economic damages in cases involving unnecessary procedures.

The verdict also arrives amid heightened scrutiny of diagnostic reliability and care coordination. Johns Hopkins Medicine has estimated that diagnostic errors cause serious harm, including death or permanent disability, to approximately 795,000 Americans annually, with millions more experiencing misdiagnosis each year. While contamination and specimen mix-ups may be less frequent than cognitive diagnostic errors, the allegations in Spencer’s case align with persistent concerns about specimen integrity, labeling controls, and the communication pathways between facilities when outside pathology results guide treatment. In Philadelphia, expanded venue rules and increased filings have also intensified the malpractice environment, adding pressure for health systems to demonstrate robust processes for second opinions and discrepancy resolution.

Case Details

Case Name: Isis Spencer v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Janos Tanyi, M.D., and Main Line Health

Court Name: Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Case Number: 230100053

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Glenn A. Ellis (The Law Offices of Glenn A. Ellis)