Found 1245 Results Sorted by Case Date
Page 10 of 125

Iowa – Pathology – Uncertainty In Diagnosis of Lichen Sclerosus



A 74-year-old female underwent a vulvar punch biopsy on 7/11/2014.  A general pathologist reviewed the specimen and arrived at a diagnosis of lichen sclerosus, a nonmalignant condition.

A senior pathologist arrived at a diagnosis different from that of the general pathologist’s lichen sclerosis diagnosis. She found “[s]kin showing foamy histiocytes, chronic dermal inflammation, and hemosiderin deposition, with a subepidermal vesicle.”  She believed the changes represented a reaction to an injury which could be from a ruptured cyst or gland.  This is also a nonmalignant condition; however, the patient would be managed differently than would a patient with lichen sclerosus.

At the hearing, the senior pathologist emphasized that she saw no features of lichen sclerosus in her review of the slides.  She explained that lichen sclerosus features inflammation running parallel to the epidermis and that was not the case in the patient’s specimen.  She also testified that the pathology report issued by the general pathologist did not contain his microscopic findings so she was unable to determine exactly what features he saw that led him to his diagnosis.  The senior pathologist found the general pathologist did not meet the standard of care in this case.

The general pathologist noted that he found this to be a “rather straight forward case”.  He stated that his diagnosis fits the patient’s age, the clinical information supplied, and the histomorphology.  At the hearing, he pointed out that, even though the senior pathologist criticized his diagnosis, she did not provide a definitive diagnosis herself but only a descriptive diagnosis.  The general pathologist explained that he looks at possible cancer cases, such as this, first thing in the morning when his mind is fresh.  After he is able to rule out malignancy, as in the patient’s case, he waits for the surgical biopsy to correlate his initial diagnosis.  Once again, the general pathologist stressed that the patient did not have a malignant lesion.

Another reviewing pathologist disagreed with the senior pathologist’s diagnosis.  He found the general pathologist’s diagnosis to be more appropriate.  The reviewing pathologist opined that the biopsy “most likely represents a hypertrophic variant of lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, which has some evidence of trauma or irritation in the recent past.”  He stressed that he did not believe the general pathologist arrived at a misdiagnosis in this case or that he failed to meet the standard of care.

There was a divergence in the evidence surrounding the general pathologist’s diagnosis in the patient’s case.  The senior pathologist opined that the general pathologist arrived at an incorrect diagnosis and stressed that she could not even determine how he arrived at his conclusions because he failed to describe his microscopic findings in the pathology report.  The reviewing pathologist, on the other hand, found the general pathologist’s diagnosis to be more appropriate than the senior pathologist’s.

The Board was faced with two equally credible experts who arrived at differing views after reviewing the same slides on which the general pathologist based his diagnosis.  This fact highlights other testimony at the hearing describing pathology as a discipline in which two similarly trained pathologists can disagree on a diagnosis without either violating the standard of care. It leads the Board to the conclusion that the state failed in its burden to prove the general pathologist failed to meet the appropriate standard of care in the patient’s case or that he engaged in practice harmful or detrimental to the public.

The absence of microscopic findings in the patient’s case is concerning. The Board urges the general pathologist to exercise more care and attention in the communication of his findings.

For other various allegations, the Board judged the general pathologist’s conduct to be below the minimum standard of competence given (his/her) lack of professional competency and practice that was harmful or detrimental to the public.  The general pathologist was warned that such practice in the future may result in further disciplinary action against his medical license.

For other various allegations, the Board ordered the general pathologist to arrange in the auditing of 5% of his cases by outside pathology laboratory approved by the Board and ensure that the auditing entity submits a report to the Board on a quarterly basis.  He was also ordered to obtain a consultation with a board-certified dermatopathologist in all suspected melanoma cases and author a paper discussing the diagnostic criteria for well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma in vulvar tissue.

State: Iowa


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Pathology


Symptom: N/A


Diagnosis: Dermatological Issues


Medical Error: No error found


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 2


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Iowa – Pathology – Sclerosing Lesion Misdiagnosed As Breast Cancer



A 56-year-old woman’s annual mammogram showed a lesion in her right breast.  A needle core biopsy of the lesion was obtained on 4/28/2014.  A general pathologist reviewed the patient’s slides and diagnosed the patient with an invasive well-differentiated ductal carcinoma of the right breast.  Based on his diagnosis, the general pathologist ordered immunohistochemical stains for estrogen and progesterone receptors and other tests.  A surgical follow up was recommended.

The patient was referred to a surgeon who informed her she would undergo an immediate lumpectomy.  The patient sought further consultation from a general surgeon and plastic surgeon for evaluation and treatment of the cancer and reconstructive surgery.  The patient met with both on 5/6/2014, at which time she elected to proceed with a bilateral mastectomy, followed by breast reconstructive surgery. The general surgeon’s records show he ordered a consultation with the John Stoddard Cancer Tumor Board for another opinion. The general surgeon contacted the general pathologist and informed him of the findings.  On that same day, the general pathologist sent the slides to Mayo Clinic to be re-read.  The general pathologist also scheduled the case to be discussed at the Marshalltown Medical and Surgical Center’s Tumor Board on 5/19/2014.

The Mayo Clinic issued its report on 5/20/2014, diagnosing a complex sclerosing lesion with unusual ductal hyperplasia and microcalcifications.  On that same date, the general pathologist authored an addendum to his pathology report amending the diagnosis to conform with that of the Mayo Clinic and adding the following comment:

“The case is reviewed for tumor board.  After reviewing the case, the case was sent to Mayo Clinic for a second opinion and the [sic] diagnosis is changed from invasive ductal cell carcinoma to complex sclerosing lesion.  The changes in the diagnosis are communicated with the general surgeon.  Results of the correct report will be discussed with the patient by the general surgeon”.

The patient underwent a lumpectomy performed by the general surgeon on 5/22/2014.  Iowa Pathology Associates reviewed the slides from the lumpectomy and issued a histopathology report confirming the diagnosis of a complex sclerosing lesion.  The report stated, “there is no evidence of atypicality or malignancy.”

An audio recording made by the patient’s husband of a discussion he and the patient had with the general pathologist regarding the misdiagnosis was admitted into evidence.  In response to an inquiry regarding why the second opinion was not obtained prior to making an initial diagnosis, the general pathologist cited to the cost of a consultation.

A senior pathologist at the Iowa clinic reviewed the patient’s slides at the Board’s request and, in contrast to the general pathologist’s carcinoma diagnosis, arrived at a diagnosis of “radial scar” which term is often used interchangeably with “complex sclerosing lesion”.  The senior pathologist testified that she found the diagnosis to be an easy one and that an “average pathologist” would have been able to make it.  However, in her written report the senior pathologist relied on a textbook, which contained the following passage: “The importance of recognizing various patterns of adenosis and sclerosing lesions, and the reason why they are considered together in this chapter, is that they may be mistaken for invasive carcinoma…”  The senior pathologist noted that the condition she diagnosed is benign, although complete excision of the lesion is generally recommended if the diagnosis has been made on a needle biopsy because of the risk of associated malignancy which can be identified only after surgical excision.

The senior pathologist also questioned the general pathologist’s use of special stains in this case.  She explained that myoepithelial cells are not present in invasive cancers and, therefore, stains can be used to look for those cells.  If a stain is used and it shows that myoepithelial cells are present, the sample would not be consistent with invasive cancer.  The senior pathologist emphasized that had the general pathologist ordered the appropriate stains, such as P63, to confirm or rule out cancer in the patient’s case, he might not have misdiagnosed cancer.  On the other hand, the senior pathologist argued that the stains the general pathologist ordered were for breast cancer receptors (estrogen and progesterone) and for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (“HER2”) status and that the HER2 was sent for fluorescent in-situ hybridization (“FISH”) analysis, all of which were unnecessary because the patient did not have breast cancer.  The senior pathologist noted that these unnecessary steps added substantial costs to the patient’s care.

The senior pathologist emphasized that this patient might have undergone an unnecessary lumpectomy or mastectomy had her case not been reviewed further.  The senior pathologist found that the general pathologist failed to meet the standard of care when he misdiagnosed the patient because of a substantial lack of knowledge or ability to discharge the professional obligations within the scope of pathology practice.  She also determined that the general pathologist’s actions, in this case, showed a failure to possess and exercise the degree of skill, learning, and care expected of a reasonable, prudent physician acting in the same or similar circumstances.

In response to the Board’s inquiry regarding this patient, the general pathologist admitted his initial diagnosis was incorrect.  He stated, however, that he read the patient’s slides a few days later while preparing to present the case at a Tumor Board and began to have second thoughts about the diagnosis.  According to the general pathologist, he “mentally” amended the diagnosis at that time to being “suspicious of cancer”.  The general pathologist stressed that he discussed the case with the patient’s clinician and also sent it to the Mayo Clinic for a second opinion.  He explained that complex sclerosing lesions are very difficult to evaluate and are subject to misdiagnosis.  The general pathologist testified that when he received the pathology report from the Mayo Clinic on 5/20/2014, he authored a correction to his original report, amending the diagnosis to complex sclerosing lesion with unusual ductal hyperplasia and microcalcifications.

The general pathologist further testified at a hearing that the HER2 test and FISH analysis were requested by the patient’s clinician and were obtained due to that request.

The general pathologist emphasized that he learned from his error in this case and now requests additional immunostains and/or second opinions in these types of cases.

Another pathologist reviewed the case and while agreeing that the general pathologist reached an incorrect diagnosis at the outset, disagreed with the senior pathologist’s determinations that the misdiagnosis and use of stains demonstrated any lack of professional knowledge or a deviation from the standard of care from the general pathologist’s part.  He opined that this type of lesion can be difficult to evaluate, especially when the general pathologist has only a small amount of tissue provided by a needle core biopsy as opposed to a completely excised lesion.  The reviewing pathologist also emphasized that, while the senior pathologist opined the general pathologist ordered unnecessary stains, the pathologists at Mayo Clinic ordered additional stains when they re-read the slides involved.

The other reviewing pathologist offered his opinion that the general pathologist did not display professional incompetence or any behavior harmful or detrimental to the public in his review of the patient’s case.

For this allegation and others, the Board judged the general pathologist’s conduct to be below the minimum standard of competence given (his/her) lack of professional competency and practice that was harmful or detrimental to the public.  The general pathologist was warned that such practice in the future may result in further disciplinary action against his medical license.

For this allegation and others, the Board ordered the general pathologist to arrange in the auditing of 5% of his cases by outside pathology laboratory approved by the Board and ensure that the auditing entity submits a report to the Board on a quarterly basis.  He was also ordered to obtain consultation with a board-certified dermatopathologist in all suspected melanoma cases and author a paper discussing the diagnostic criteria for well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma in vulvar tissue.

State: Iowa


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Pathology


Symptom: N/A


Diagnosis: Dermatological Issues


Medical Error: Diagnostic error, Unnecessary or excessive treatment or surgery


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 4


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Pain Management – Increase In Dosage Of Nature-Throid In A Patient With Normal TSH And T4 Levels



On 6/3/2013, a 67-year-old female presented to a pain management specialist for treatment of her previously diagnosed hypothyroidism.  The pain management specialist prescribed the patient 65 mg of Nature-Throid daily and drew blood for lab tests.  Each 65 mg Nature-Throid medication consists of 38 mcg of levothyroxine and 9 mcg of liothyronine.  The results of the patient’s blood tests showed normal TSH levels, normal T4 levels, and slightly elevated T3 levels.

On 6/18/2013, the pain management specialist increased the patient’s prescription for Nature-Throid to 130 mg daily.  The results of the patient’s blood tests did not justify increasing the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient.  A reasonably prudent physician would only have increased the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient with justification.  The pain management specialist did not document justification for increasing the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient.  The blood tests did not justify prescribing the 130 mg of Nature-Throid daily.  A reasonably prudent physician would have waited for the patient’s hormone levels to properly balance and reach equilibrium before altering the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient.

On 7/16/2013, the pain management specialist increased the patient’s prescription for Nature-Throid to 195 mg daily.  A reasonably prudent physician would not have altered the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient without having ordered blood tests for the patient.  The pain management specialist did not document justification for increasing the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient.  A reasonably prudent physician would have waited for the patient’s hormone levels to properly balance and reach equilibrium before altering the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient.

On 7/16/2013, the pain management specialist informed the patient that he was increasing her dosage of Nature-Throid based on her body temperature.  A reasonably prudent physician would not have increased the dosage of Nature-Throid prescribed to the patient based on the patient’s body temperature.  Also, a reasonably prudent physician would have ordered blood tests for the patient, and he did not order or document ordering any blood tests for the patient.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the pain management specialist’s license.  The Board ordered that he pay a fine of $5,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for a minimum of $5,857.09 and not to exceed $7,857.09.  The Board also ordered that he complete a records course and complete ten hours of continuing medical education in endocrinology and complete a course in quality assurance consultation/risk management assessment.

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Pain Management, Endocrinology


Symptom: N/A


Diagnosis: Endocrine Disease


Medical Error: Improper medication management


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 1


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



California – Radiology – Epidural Injection With Subsequent Lower Extremity Pain And Sensory And Motor Function Loss



On 1/15/2010, a 61-year-old female underwent an epidural injection.  Following the procedure, she complained of sharp pain in the lower extremities, followed by sensory and motor function loss below the T10 and T11 level.  The patient was transferred by ambulance to the emergency department.

A thoracic and lumbar MRI was performed and interpreted by a radiologist.  The final report for the lumbar spine states “Mild desiccation and degenerative changes of the disc but no disc bulge or herniation is noted.”  His final report of the thoracic spine demonstrates “normal MRI of the thoracic spine…A repeat study of the thoracolumbar spine is recommended without contrast infusion in both projections to better evaluate this area as this is on the edge of the study on the current images both lumbar and thoracic is not well delineated.”  Although the images were suboptimal, the epidural hematoma of the lower thoracic spine was evident in the axial images.

On 1/19/2010, a repeat MRI was performed.  The radiologist interpreted the MRI stating there is “abnormal signal focus demonstrated in the spinal canal from approximately the T10-T11 disc space inferiorly through the T12-L1 disc space located mostly in the posterior and posterolateral aspect of the spinal canal displacing the cords slightly anteriorly and causing a slight mass effect on the cord and subarachnoid sac.  This is consistent with a subdural or epidural hematoma.”

The Board judged the radiologist’s conduct as having fallen below the standard of care given failure to observe and document all pertinent findings on diagnostic imaging studies, failure to discuss findings requiring urgent treatment with the referring physician, failure to diagnose the abnormality found on MRI, and failure to document his discussion with the referring physician regarding the abnormality on MRI.

A public reprimand was issued against the radiologist.

State: California


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Radiology, Emergency Medicine


Symptom: Extremity Pain, Numbness, Weakness/Fatigue


Diagnosis: Spinal Injury Or Disorder


Medical Error: False negative, Failure of communication with other providers, Lack of proper documentation


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 3


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Internal Medicine – Daily Dose Of 1200 Milligrams Of Gabapentin For Patient With End Stage Renal Disease



On 5/8/2014, a 74-year-old female presented to an internist for the purpose of establishing care.  The patient had multiple medical problems, including diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and recurrent C. difficile infections.

At all times pertinent to this complaint, the patient was undergoing chronic hemodialysis treatment.

On 6/10/2014, the patient presented to the internist for a follow-up visit.  The internist prescribed 600 mg tablets of gabapentin to the patient to treat her diabetic neuropathy.  The patient’s prescription directed her to take the 600 mg of gabapentin twice daily, totalling 1200 mg of gabapentin per day.

On 6/14/2014, after taking her prescribed dosage of gabapentin, the patient lost control of her leg muscles and fell, resulting in a fracture of the T12 vertebrae in her back.

The prevailing professional standard of care required the internist to prescribe the patient a dosage of gabapentin not to exceed 150 mg per day, due to her end-stage renal disease.  The internist prescribed the patient an inappropriate and/or excessive dosage of gabapentin.

According to the internist, he verbally instructed the patient and/or her family members to modify the gabapentin prescription.

The internist failed to document and/or accurately document the alleged verbal instruction to the patient and/or her family members to modify the patient’s gabapentin prescription.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the internist’s license.  The Board ordered that the internist pay a fine of $5,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for the case at a minimum of $30,433.57 and not to exceed $32,433.57.  The Board also ordered that the internist complete a medical records course and complete five hours of continuing medical education in clinical pharmacology and drug dosing.

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Internal Medicine, Nephrology


Symptom: Weakness/Fatigue


Diagnosis: Drug Overdose, Side Effects, or Withdrawal, Diabetes, Neurological Disease, Spinal Injury Or Disorder, Renal Disease, Fracture(s)


Medical Error: Improper medication management, Accidental Medication Error, Lack of proper documentation


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 3


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Pediatrics – Deep Laceration Of The Right Knee Treated With Debridement, Irrigation, And Suturing



On 12/7/2011, an 8-year-old male presented to a medical emergency department with a deep laceration to his right knee.  The laceration was a full thickness cut with visualization of the capsule.  An x-ray revealed air in the knee joint.

A pediatrician examined the patient’s knee and performed debridement, cleaning by irrigation, and suturing of the laceration.  Bacitracin and dressing were applied to the patient’s knee.

On 12/10/2011, the patient returned to the emergency department with complaints of right knee swelling, redness, and pain.  The patient was admitted to the pediatric floor.

Further examination revealed septic arthritis in the patient’s right knee, which required two operations and the introduction of a PICC line for long-term antibiotic therapy.  The patient sustained cartilage damage as a result of the septic arthritis and suffered from significant knee pain.

The Board judged the pediatrician’s conduct to be below the minimal standard of competence given that he failed to refer the patient to an orthopedic surgeon and to fully wash out the patient’s joint by performing an open debridement under anesthesia.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the pediatrician’s license.  The Board ordered the pediatrician to pay a fine of $10,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs at a minimum of $5,496.59 and not to exceed $7,496.59.  The Board also ordered that the pediatrician complete ten hours continuing medical education in pediatric orthopedic diagnosis and treatment and complete five hours of continuing medical education in “risk management.”

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Pediatrics, Orthopedic Surgery


Symptom: Joint Pain, Swelling


Diagnosis: Trauma Injury, Septic Arthritis


Medical Error: Improper treatment, Referral failure to hospital or specialist


Significant Outcome: Permanent Loss Of Functional Status Or Organ


Case Rating: 4


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



North Carolina – Orthopedic Surgery – Wrong Site Surgery When Performing Arthrodesis Of The Left Great Toe



The Board was notified of a professional liability payment made on 8/30/16.

A patient presented to an orthopedic surgery for arthrodesis of her left great toe.  In preparing the patient for surgery, the orthopedic surgeon stated that he did not see the markings on the left leg, given that they had been covered by stockings.  The orthopedic surgeon erroneously prepared the patient for surgery on the right toe based on what he believed he saw on the x-ray.  Despite performing appropriate timeout procedures, none of the surgical team appreciated the error until the end of the procedure.

The Board expressed concern that the orthopedic surgeon’s conduct was below the standard of care.  The Board acknowledged that the orthopedic surgeon implemented several practice improvement procedures in response to this event.

The Board issued a public letter of concern, which was reported to the Federation of State Medical Boards.  It was not reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

State: North Carolina


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Orthopedic Surgery


Symptom: N/A


Diagnosis: Musculoskeletal Disease


Medical Error: Wrong site procedure


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 2


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Gastroenterology – Patient And Provider Not Notified Of Amended Pathology Biopsy Results From Colonoscopy



On 5/6/2013, a 55-year-old female presented to a digestive health center for a colonoscopy with biopsy.  During the colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist found a mass in the patient’s rectosigmoid region.  He obtained multiple biopsies of the mass and sent the specimens for in-house pathologic evaluation.  The colonoscopy was completed without complication and the patient was brought to recovery in stable condition.

On 5/7/2013, an in-house pathologist rendered a preliminary gastrointestinal pathology report which reported that the specimen was highly suspicious for a signet ring adenocarcinoma.  The initial pathology report indicated that the case was sent to a second pathologist for another opinion.

The gastroenterologist received and reviewed the initial pathology report.  He referred the patient to a colorectal surgeon for surgical intervention.

On 5/8/2013, the second pathologist issued a pathology report which stated that the specimen was negative for signet cells and adenocarcinoma and recommended a re-biopsy to completely rule out malignancy.  The gastroenterologist received and reviewed the copy of the report by the second pathologist.

On 5/16/2013, the in-house pathologist issued an amended gastrointestinal pathology report which stated that the specimen was negative for signet ring cells.  The gastroenterologist received and reviewed the amended pathology report.

Despite receiving and reviewing the pathology report from both the pathologists, the gastroenterologist failed to notify the patient of the change in the reading of the specimen.  The gastroenterologist also failed to ensure that the colorectal surgeon was notified of the change in the reading of the specimen.

On 6/11/2013, the patient underwent a low anterior resection, mobilization of splenic flexure, and diverting loop ileostomy with colonic J pouch.

The Board judged the gastroenterologists conduct to be below the minimal standard of competence given that he failed to notify the patient of the change in the reading of the specimen and ensure that the colorectal surgeon was notified of the change in the reading of the specimen.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the gastroenterologist’s license.  The Board ordered that the gastroenterologist pay a fine of $10,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs of a minimum of $3,008.71 and not to exceed $5,008.71.  The Board also ordered that the gastroenterologist complete five hours of continuing medical education in “risk management.”

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Gastroenterology


Symptom: Mass (Breast Mass, Lump, etc.)


Diagnosis: Cancer


Medical Error: Failure of communication with patient or patient relations, False positive, Failure of communication with other providers


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 5


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Physician Assistant – Cardiac Catheterization Ordered In The Wrong Patient



On 10/11/2015, Patient A, an 89-year-old male presented to the emergency department with complaints of chest congestion, weakness, and chest pressure.

Lab results revealed that Patient A had elevated troponin levels, and he was admitted and referred for a cardiology consultation.

On 10/11/2015, the patient saw a cardiologist for the cardiology consultation.  The cardiologist documented that the patient had an upper respiratory infection and recommended that the patient continue antibiotics, gentle diuresis, and outpatient medical therapy.

At around the same time, on the same date, the cardiologist saw Patient B for a cardiology consultation.  Sometime after the cardiac consultations of Patient A and Patient B, the cardiologist contacted a physician assistant and instructed him to order a cardiac catheterization for Patient B.

The physician assistant placed an entry in Patient A’s medical chart instead of Patient B’s chart, ordering the cardiac catheterization.  The physician assistant failed to review Patient A’s available medical records, including labs, notes, and imaging studies, before placing the cardiac catheterization order in his chart.

The following morning, cardiac catheterization was unnecessarily performed on Patient A.

The Board judged the physician assistant’s conduct to be below the minimal standard of competence given that he failed to review the patient’s available medical records, including labs, notes, and images studies, before placing the cardiac catheterization order in his chart.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the physician assistant’s license.  The Board ordered that the physician assistant pay a fine of $2,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for the case at a minimum of $2,611.86 and not to exceed $3,111.86.  The Board also ordered that the physician assistant complete five hours of continuing medical education in “risk management.”

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Physician Assistant, Cardiology


Symptom: Weakness/Fatigue


Diagnosis: Infectious Disease


Medical Error: Accidental error, Unnecessary or excessive treatment or surgery


Significant Outcome: N/A


Case Rating: 3


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Florida – Interventional Radiology – Kyphoplasty Performed On T11 Instead Of T12 Site For T12 Fracture After A Fall



On 10/13/2015, a 70-year-old male was transported to the emergency department after a fall from a hammock when the rope broke.

A CT scan of the lumbar spine was done and a 20% anterior wedge compression fracture on the T12 section was found.  An MRI of the lumbar spine, on the same day, showed an acute T12 compression fracture.  An MRI of the thoracic spine was done, on the same day, and showed an acute T12 compression fracture with bone marrow edema.

The patient was admitted to the hospital and recommended for T12 kyphoplasty.

On 10/14/2015, an interventional radiologist performed a kyphoplasty on the patient’s T11 vertebrae (wrong site), instead of the T12 vertebrae.

The patient was discharged on 10/19/2015 and began having progressively more pain.

On 10/22/2015, the patient was readmitted to the hospital by ambulance with progressively worsening pain.

On 10/23/2015, a two-view x-ray of the lumbar spine revealed that a T12 compression fracture had remained unchanged despite the 10/12/2015 surgery, and that the T11 vertebrae had been unnecessarily operated upon.

The patient was discharged to a rehabilitation center for two weeks to recover.

The Board issued a letter of concern against the interventional radiologist’s license.  The Board ordered that the interventional radiologist pay a fine of $4,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for the case at a minimum of $2,009.04 and not to exceed $4,009.04.  The Board also ordered that the interventional radiologist complete five hours of continuing medical education in “risk management” and complete a one-hour lecture/seminar on wrong site surgeries.

State: Florida


Date: June 2017


Specialty: Interventional Radiology


Symptom: Pain


Diagnosis: Fracture(s), Spinal Injury Or Disorder


Medical Error: Wrong site procedure


Significant Outcome: Hospital Bounce Back


Case Rating: 2


Link to Original Case File: Download PDF



Page 10 of 125