Sentence
Torts and accidents
Claim: NIS 2.5 million for late detection of cancer
The family of a woman who died after a battle with cancer claims a chain of omissions by the doctors who accompanied her and led to her death.
Among other things, she was not sent in time for tests and was not referred for proper surgery
Tags
cancer
Medical Malpractice
Adv. Uri Gilboa, Adv. Amit Uriah, in collaboration with Zap Mishpati
Tuesday, 29 June 2021, 11:39 Updated: 11:48
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
Cancer (Photo: ShutterStock)
"My wife died as a result of a chain of failures on the part of the doctors who treated her," the husband of a woman who died after a long battle with cancer claims in court.
In a lawsuit filed by the deceased's estate manager, through attorneys Uri Gilboa and Amit Uriah, it was alleged that a delay in diagnosing the cancer led to her death.
Now the family members of the deceased are demanding compensation of more than NIS 2.5 million for the "seven sections of hell" that she had to go through, as she defined it, following the late discovery of the cancer.
Compensation is required, among other things, for shortening the life of the deceased, the loss of wages caused to her and the loss of support for her family.
More on Walla!
The patient who lay with a stroke for 14 hours received huge compensation
To the full article
9 months delay in referral for surgery
Nothing hinted at the bitter fate expected for the deceased (45), a mother of three from an established family in the Jerusalem area.
Throughout her life she has maintained the highest level of private medical follow-up with a leading gynecologist.
However, as it became clear to her later on, reputation is not a guarantee of optimal care.
The lawsuit filed by the deceased during her lifetime details a chain of omissions of the doctor who treated her.
As part of this, it was argued that despite persistent symptoms that necessitated negation of the malignant tumor in the uterus, the doctor was lazy, assumed that it was a benign tumor, and did not send the patient for further imaging tests.
In addition, it was alleged in the lawsuit that the leading physician in her field was more than nine months (!) Late in referring the deceased for surgery to remove what she thought was a benign tumor, but later turned out to be a malignant tumor of the lymosarcoma (malignant tumor of a uterine muscle).
The surgeon chose a dangerous method and lingered
According to the lawsuit, the chain of omissions did not stop, and the doctor who performed the surgery - who was also sued - chose a laparoscopic method, which is prohibited in a case where a malignant tumor is suspected due to the risk of spreading malignant cells to nearby organs.
The lawsuit alleges that the surgeon clearly delayed the results of the pathological findings in the surgery that came from the lab with considerable delay.
Unfortunately for the deceased, the risk ignored by the doctor and surgeon materialized, and it turned out that the tumor was not benign but malignant.
The metastases were discovered too late
Due to the delay in diagnosing the disease, the lawsuit alleges, the tumor was removed from the body of the deceased after it was already in an advanced stage and the hysterectomy was also performed late. Metastases to other organs in the deceased's body were soon discovered, but it was too late. After a 4.5-year battle with cancer, the deceased passed away.
The lawsuit filed against the doctors who treated the deceased alleges, among other things, that they did not act as a reasonable physician would have acted in the circumstances of the case, neglected to perform the required tests, did not properly monitor their results, and did not assess the risk of malignant tumor.
In the written defense submitted by the doctor and the surgeon, they denied the claims of the deceased's estate in the statement of claim. According to the two, they acted professionally and according to the accepted medical standard, and there is no causal connection between the way they acted and the difficult result that was reflected in the death of the deceased.
* The authors, representing the estate of the deceased in this procedure, specialize in handling complex cases of medical malpractice
Law
Office of Uri Gilboa and Adv. Amit Uriah
Phone
: 077-9968260
Article
courtesy of Zap Legal The
information presented in the article does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it and does not constitute a recommendation for taking proceedings or avoiding proceedings.
Anyone who relies on the information in the article does so at his own risk
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
