$1.4M Vermont Verdict in Dartmouth Health Malpractice Case

A Vermont jury returned a $1.4 million verdict against Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health entities after finding medical malpractice in the care of a Tunbridge man treated for testicular cancer. According to the plaintiff’s counsel, the case focused on whether Dartmouth Health providers met the applicable standard of care during post-surgical surveillance and follow-up, including evaluation of worsening symptoms and interpretation of imaging studies. The plaintiff alleged that metastatic disease visible on imaging went unrecognized and that his complaints were not adequately investigated, resulting in delayed treatment and resulting damages. The jury also considered a separate implied-consent theory but did not find liability on that claim.

Alleged Breakdowns in Surveillance and Follow-Up

According to court filings, the plaintiff began receiving care through Dartmouth Health in May 2020 for urologic and oncologic concerns, including the capture and interpretation of radiologic images. The complaint described treatment for cancer in the left testicle, culminating in a May 29, 2020 surgery to remove the testicle at a Lebanon, New Hampshire hospital. After the orchiectomy, the treating urologist recommended surveillance rather than chemotherapy or radiation. The pleadings described a surveillance plan that called for abdominal and pelvic examinations and imaging every four to six months for the first two years, then every six months through years three to five, with recurrence risk discussed as approximately 15% for Stage I disease and potentially higher depending on individual factors.

The plaintiff alleged that the follow-up was inadequate in practice. The complaint asserted that throughout 2021 he repeatedly reported increasing erectile dysfunction, pain, and urinary difficulty, yet no provider properly investigated whether those symptoms suggested recurrence or metastasis. It further alleged gaps in access to the urologist during a period from May 2021 to early January 2022, with the plaintiff claiming he was not seen until a physician friend intervened to facilitate care. Framed as a deviation from the standard of care, the alleged failure to respond to persistent and escalating symptoms became central to the malpractice theory presented to the jury.

Imaging Interpretation and the Disputed Missed Metastasis

A key factual dispute involved radiologic images taken in January and April 2021. The lawsuit alleged that when Dartmouth Health-employed providers and/or other defendants reviewed those images, they did not identify a metastatic tumor in the pelvis that was present. The complaint also asserted communication failures surrounding the imaging process, alleging that the radiologists interpreting the studies were not adequately informed of the patient’s condition or his ongoing complaints. In the plaintiff’s framing, the absence of complete clinical context contributed to an interpretation that was documented as normal, despite what the plaintiff contended was evidence of metastatic disease.

The pleadings further stated that retrospective review later acknowledged the presence of a metastatic pelvic tumor on the same January and April 2021 images. The plaintiff alleged that the delay in recognition affected the timing and trajectory of subsequent care, with additional treatment not occurring until January 2022. Dartmouth Health’s liability exposure therefore turned on whether the jury accepted that reasonable, prudent providers under similar circumstances would have identified the lesion earlier, pursued additional workup in response to symptoms, or adjusted surveillance decisions based on the evolving clinical picture.

Trial Outcome, Claims Rejected, and Post-Trial Posture

After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for approximately five hours over two days before awarding $1.4 million in damages on the medical malpractice claim. The plaintiff’s attorney stated the verdict validated allegations that Dartmouth Health failed to identify a metastatic pelvic tumor and failed to treat the plaintiff’s complaints with appropriate urgency. The complaint sought recovery for categories of harm including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and lost income, describing the plaintiff’s injuries as severe and tied to the asserted deviations from the standard of care.

The verdict did not extend to every theory presented. The jury rejected a second claim asserted under implied-consent provisions, narrowing the outcome to professional-negligence liability rather than patient-consent-based recovery. The defendants included Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Inc., Dartmouth Hitchcock Clinic, and Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, collectively referenced as Dartmouth Health; the treating urologist identified in the pleadings was not named as a defendant. The court indicated the defense would have a short period to file post-trial motions, leaving open the possibility of challenges to the verdict or requests to alter the judgment while the case proceeds through customary post-verdict practice.

Case Details

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Gravel & Shea PC

Defense Attorney(s): Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC