$49M Verdict in Westmed Cervical Cancer Screening Case

A Connecticut state court jury returned a $49 million verdict against The Westchester Medical Group PC, doing business as Westmed Medical Group, in a medical negligence action brought by Jennifer Anderson and her husband. The plaintiffs alleged that Anderson, a high-risk patient with repeated indicators of infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), was not properly screened and followed over several years, allowing cervical cancer to progress to late-stage metastatic disease. The verdict included substantial non-economic damages and a separate award for loss of companionship, reflecting the jury’s acceptance of the plaintiffs’ theory that earlier intervention would have altered the clinical course and prognosis.

Alleged Screening Failures and Standard-of-Care Theory

According to the operative allegations, Anderson received gynecologic care over a multi-year period and had recurring test results that identified high-risk HPV, including HPV 16. While certain Pap tests were described as negative for cancer, the plaintiffs contended the presence of high-risk HPV represented a continuing warning sign that required appropriate follow-up to rule out cervical dysplasia or malignancy. The complaint also asserted that, at one point, a laboratory did not perform HPV testing because of an improperly completed order form, which the plaintiffs attributed to provider error rather than laboratory decision-making.

Central to the plaintiffs’ standard-of-care theory was the contention that providers failed to order colposcopy despite what they characterized as multiple “red flags” consistent with established screening and follow-up protocols for patients with persistent high-risk HPV. The plaintiffs argued that a colposcopy is a standard diagnostic step in this clinical setting and that the absence of timely escalation in evaluation contributed to delayed diagnosis. Cancer was ultimately detected after Anderson developed symptoms in 2019, at which point, the plaintiffs asserted, the disease had already spread to the chest, abdomen, and pelvis.

Trial Evidence, Defense Posture, and the Jury’s Findings

The case proceeded to trial in Stamford Superior Court, where jurors were asked to determine whether Westmed was liable for the alleged failures in screening, follow-up, and care coordination during the relevant treatment window. The evidentiary presentation focused on the sequence of screenings and results, the absence of certain follow-up procedures, and the timeline between earlier indicators of high-risk HPV and the eventual cancer diagnosis. The plaintiffs maintained that Anderson consistently attended annual visits and completed recommended testing, placing responsibility for clinical decision-making and follow-up actions on the treating practice.

Westmed disputed liability and indicated it would pursue post-trial relief. In a statement, the practice said, “While we disagree with the verdict, we empathize with the Andersons,” and further stated that it intended to file post-trial motions and an appeal. The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict, awarding Jennifer Anderson $38 million in non-economic damages and $1 million in economic damages, and awarding her husband $10 million for loss of companionship. Stamford Superior Court Judge Yamini Menon accepted the verdict.

Record Retention Allegations and Organizational Oversight Issues

Beyond negligence in clinical follow-up, the plaintiffs also advanced allegations concerning record handling and practice management after organizational changes. They claimed that when Westmed absorbed Putnam Gynecology & Obstetrics PC in 2015 and transitioned paper records to a new electronic system, certain patient documents were deleted in violation of record retention requirements. The complaint further alleged that staff were not adequately trained on the electronic system, contributing to gaps in the medical record that plaintiffs contended were relevant to continuity of care and documentation of screening decisions.

The plaintiffs also asserted failures in monitoring and supervision of medical staff, placing the alleged clinical omissions in the context of broader operational oversight. The Andersons were represented by Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, according to court filings. If upheld, the verdict underscores how juries may evaluate both the clinical pathway for cancer screening and the administrative systems that support follow-up, documentation, and retention—particularly where plaintiffs allege that missed escalation steps in a preventive screening framework resulted in delayed diagnosis and advanced disease.