Michigan Federal Jury Awards $8.5 Million for Missed Cancer Diagnosis

The Facts of the Case

The case focused on the illness of a man who was referred to the Toledo Clinic Cancer Center in 2018 after blood testing by his primary care doctor revealed an elevated red blood cell count. Such findings may indicate kidney disease or other illnesses, including kidney cancer.

The doctor at the cancer center ordered additional blood testing but did not order a CAT scan. A CAT scan could have detected kidney cancer, according to the plaintiff's attorneys. Instead, the cancer center physician recommended that the patient make certain lifestyle changes, focusing on the patient’s weight, smoking, and sleep apnea.

In June 2019, the plaintiff’s headaches drove him to seek hospital care. Hospital physicians discovered a brain tumor that had metastasized from the plaintiff’s undiagnosed kidney cancer. The plaintiff passed away in June 2023 after undergoing treatment for both kidney and brain cancer.

The Jury’s Verdict

In court filings and at trial, attorneys Amy E. Schlotterer and Andrew J. Zaituna of Schlotterer Law represented the cancer clinic and the physician. They argued that the standard of care didn’t require the physician to order a CAT scan or additional imaging. They also argued that the physician’s decision to focus on lifestyle changes was a reasonable response to the blood test results. In addition, they noted, the plaintiff lived longer than expected after his eventual diagnosis.

Attorneys Paul Doherty and Kanwarpreet S. Khahra of Ven Johnson Law PLC, representing the plaintiff, acknowledged that their client outlived expectations after his diagnosis and that his kidney cancer was incurable. Yet they focused on another point: Had the kidney cancer been diagnosed in 2018, the plaintiff would not have had to undergo the additional ordeal of treatment for brain cancer. Treatment could have focused solely on his kidneys.

After hearing arguments in the case, jurors found in favor of the plaintiff. They awarded $115,000 in medical expenses, $6.5 million in non-economic damages for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering, and an additional $2 million in damages for the plaintiff’s wife to compensate her for loss of consortium.

Takeaways for Attorneys

Arguments at trial occasionally seemed to contradict jurors’ common-sense understanding of how cancer progresses - a point that weighed in favor of his client, says attorney Paul Doherty.

"One of the defense experts would not concede that an earlier diagnosis of cancer normally means a better outcome. Every layperson understands that generally the quicker you get the diagnosis, the better result you have," says Doherty.

Even in this case, where the plaintiff’s kidney cancer was incurable, jurors would likely accept the notion that earlier knowledge of cancer means more time to accept the situation and handle treatment - conditions that affect a cancer patient’s psychological and emotional suffering. The sudden dismay of learning one has severe cancer that another doctor missed has a more profound impact than the belief that the cancer was caught as quickly as possible and that a patient and family have done all they could do.

The $8.5 million verdict is likely to be reduced according to Michigan’s medical malpractice caps. Michigan law sets two caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. These caps are adjusted for inflation each year by the Michigan Department of Treasury.

For 2024, the “higher” cap, applying to severe cases, is set at $1,016,000. The “lower” cap, applying to all other claims, is set at $569,000. The jury’s verdict included a finding that the plaintiff suffered a serious brain injury - a finding that qualifies the plaintiff for the higher cap.

Even when medical malpractice caps limit the final payout, a jury’s willingness to return a higher verdict can be reassuring to a family and community. Such a verdict communicates the jury’s evaluation of the seriousness of the situation.