Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Services

Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District, Summit County · Torts

TortsMedical MalpracticeNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentExpert Testimonymedical malpracticenegligent infliction of emotional distresscontemporaneous physical injury

Facts

Lonna Loudin underwent a screening mammogram in April 2003 that Dr. Patterson read as normal, but after a lump was found in 2004, a later mammogram revealed a spiculated mass highly suggestive of malignancy, and Dr. Patterson admitted the same mass appeared on the 2003 films. Loudin's expert radiologist testified that Patterson deviated from the standard of care by failing to identify the mass in 2003 and seek further evaluation. Loudin's expert oncologist testified that during the 13-month delay the tumor grew from one centimeter to two centimeters and spread to two lymph nodes, increasing her stage from I to IIA and reducing her survival prognosis. Loudin testified that the delay caused severe distress because she feared the increased risk of recurrence and death.

Issue

Whether, on summary judgment, Loudin presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that the radiologist's alleged negligent delay in diagnosis proximately caused compensable injury for purposes of medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Also, whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding parts of the expert radiologist's redirect testimony as leading.

Rule

A medical-malpractice plaintiff in Ohio must prove duty, breach, causation based on probability, and damages. For negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff who suffers contemporaneous physical injury caused by the defendant's breach need not satisfy the heightened requirement applicable to purely emotional-injury claims; physical injury means physical damage to the body, and growth and metastasis of cancer caused by negligent delay in diagnosis can qualify as such injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Kern underwent a chest scan at Riverbend Diagnostic Group. A radiologist negligently failed to report a suspicious lung nodule, and fourteen months later doctors discovered that the nodule had enlarged and spread to nearby lymph nodes; Maya now alleges emotional distress from the increased risk that the cancer will recur.

Under the majority rule, which is the strongest basis for allowing Maya to pursue negligent infliction of emotional distress without separately proving that her distress was severe and debilitating?

Explanation. After Binns, a plaintiff who suffers contemporaneous physical injury caused by the defendant’s negligence need not satisfy the heightened severe-and-debilitating standard that applies to purely emotional-injury claims. The majority defined physical injury as physical damage to the body, and held that growth and metastasis of cancer caused by negligent delay in diagnosis can qualify. Maya’s theory fits that rule because she alleges bodily worsening of an existing cancer, not mere upset alone.