Symbolic image of broken communication in healthcare.

Missed Connections: How Failures in Medical Communication Can Lead to Legal Battles

Lena Kashyap in Law & Justice June 2025 • 5 min read.

"Explore a real-life case where a breakdown in communication between a radiologist and urologist resulted in a delayed cancer diagnosis and a multimillion-dollar settlement."

In the fast-paced environment of modern healthcare, the seamless exchange of information between medical professionals is not just a matter of best practice—it's a critical safeguard for patient well-being. Miscommunication or a breakdown in relaying important findings can lead to delayed diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and, tragically, significant harm to patients. These failures can also open the door to complex legal battles, as healthcare providers grapple with the consequences of communication lapses.

This article delves into a compelling legal case that underscores the vital importance of clear and direct communication in the medical field. The case revolves around a 53-year-old man whose colon cancer diagnosis was significantly delayed due to a failure in communication between a radiologist and a urologist. What started as a routine prelithotripsy workup quickly escalated into a dire situation with profound legal and ethical implications.

To protect the privacy of those involved, all identifying information—including names, locations, and specific details—has been redacted. The focus remains sharply on the systemic issues and lessons learned, offering valuable insights for healthcare professionals and anyone interested in the intersection of medicine, communication, and the law.

The Lawsuit: A Case of Delayed Diagnosis

Symbolic image of broken communication in healthcare.

The lawsuit was initiated by a 53-year-old man, diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer, and his wife. The defendants included a self-employed urologist and a major metropolitan medical center, which bore legal responsibility for the actions of its employed attending radiologist. The core allegation was that the radiologist failed to directly communicate a significant, unexpected finding from a CT scan to the urologist who had ordered it. This CT scan was part of a routine prelithotripsy assessment.

On a Friday evening, the radiologist interpreted the CT study and issued a two-page report. The report detailed the presence of kidney stones, as expected, but also noted, "Soft tissue mass suspicious for colonic neoplasm, suggest further evaluation with colonoscopy." While the kidney stone findings were listed at the bottom of the first page, the critical colon findings were placed at the top of the second page.

Key Findings: The radiologist identified a potential issue (colonic neoplasm) during a routine CT scan.
Communication Breakdown: Despite attempting to contact the urologist, the radiologist only left a voice message.
Report Placement: Critical information about the colon was located on the second page of the report.

That same evening, the radiologist dictated and signed off on the report. He then telephoned the urologist's office to alert him to the unexpected abnormality, but no one answered. The radiologist left a voice message requesting the urologist to return the call to discuss the CT report. The report was also faxed to the urologist's office, and the radiologist went home. The urologist, however, never called the radiologist back. In a later deposition, the urologist admitted to reviewing the first page of the report, which contained the urologic findings he was looking for, but he missed the second page and, consequently, the crucial information about the potential colon cancer. Although the patient underwent successful lithotripsy, he remained unaware of the potential colon cancer until it was diagnosed 19 months later, by which point it had metastasized to stage IV.

The High Cost of Silence

The case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of robust communication protocols in healthcare. While technology offers numerous channels for information exchange, the human element remains indispensable. Direct conversations, clear documentation, and a commitment to ensuring that critical findings are not just reported but also understood are essential components of patient care. As the legal outcome of this case demonstrates, the consequences of failing to communicate effectively can be devastating, leading to significant financial penalties and, more importantly, compromising the health and well-being of patients.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What specific actions by the radiologist and urologist led to the delayed cancer diagnosis in this case?

The radiologist, after identifying a potential 'colonic neoplasm' on a CT scan during a routine prelithotripsy assessment, attempted to contact the urologist by phone, leaving a voice message. The radiologist also faxed the two-page report, where the critical finding about the colon was placed on the second page. The urologist admitted to reviewing only the first page, which contained the expected urologic findings, and missed the crucial information about the potential colon cancer. Therefore, the delayed diagnosis resulted from the radiologist's indirect communication method (voice message and report placement) and the urologist's failure to review the entire report.

What role did the medical center play in the legal proceedings, and why was it held responsible?

The medical center, a major metropolitan institution, was a defendant in the lawsuit because it bore legal responsibility for the actions of its employed attending radiologist. The lawsuit specifically named the medical center alongside the self-employed urologist, highlighting the concept of vicarious liability. This means the medical center was legally responsible for the radiologist's failure to effectively communicate the critical findings from the CT scan, even though the urologist was not an employee of the center.

How did the placement of information within the CT scan report contribute to the communication breakdown between the radiologist and the urologist?

The placement of key findings within the CT scan report significantly contributed to the communication breakdown. While the expected findings about kidney stones were listed on the first page, the critical information about a potential 'colonic neoplasm' was placed on the second page. This positioning likely led the urologist to overlook the critical information. This shows how crucial the layout is and emphasizes the need for a clear and concise presentation of urgent findings, especially when relaying them to another medical professional.

Beyond the financial implications, what were the other consequences of the communication failure in this case?

The most devastating consequence of the communication failure was the significant delay in diagnosing the patient's colon cancer. The cancer, initially detected as a 'colonic neoplasm,' progressed to stage IV metastatic cancer over 19 months because it was not addressed promptly. This delay not only worsened the patient's health and prognosis, but it also led to immense emotional distress for the patient and his wife. This also underscores that poor communication can compromise patient health and well-being and not only leads to financial penalties.

What specific communication protocols or practices could have prevented the adverse outcome in this case, and what lessons can healthcare professionals learn?

Several communication practices could have averted the adverse outcome. First, the radiologist could have used a more direct approach to alert the urologist about the critical findings. This could include a direct phone call and ensuring acknowledgement of the findings. Second, the report could have been designed so that the most critical findings were prominently displayed on the first page or flagged with an alert. Third, healthcare professionals should establish a system for ensuring all critical findings are reviewed and acknowledged. Healthcare professionals should also be aware of the legal and ethical implications of effective communication. This case highlights the need for robust communication protocols that prioritize direct conversations, clear documentation, and confirmed understanding of findings to prevent similar tragedies and legal complications.