You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

We are continuing to serve clients during the COVID-19 pandemic More Info.

Family

I have been practicing medical law for more than two decades and I am still shocked every time someone comes to me alleging their doctor missed a cancer diagnosis.

It is unforgivable and should not happen. The incidence and severity of breast cancer is thrust into our faces every day, when we turn on a television or radio, open up a newspaper, when we watch sport and when our kids play it.

The awareness around this hideous disease is prolific and has directly and positively influenced the number of women receiving regular mammograms.

So when women visit a doctor, they rightly expect to receive the best possible care.

There should be no trick to testing for breast cancer. With the technology we have available today, missing a tumour is like a footballer missing a goal from one metre out.

Over the past few months I have spoken to five women and the sister of another whose breast cancer diagnosis was missed.

Each story is different but each shares similar details.

Either the doctor didn’t do the right test, the test was not comprehensive or the test was incorrectly reviewed.

The last of these three is particularly concerning. If it is true, this alleged breast cancer expert was unable to competently look at a scan and identify a tumour – how can we expect women to trust the information they receive?

In short, they shouldn’t.

And what is particularly tragic is that many of the women I am seeing are mothers with young children whose lives may or will be cut short as a result of the delay.

Whether it’s breast cancer, heart disease or even skin disorders, if a patient feels like the treatment they have received is not right, they should never hesitate in getting a second opinion.

At the time, the thought of going to another doctor might seem like you're overdoing it, but it really could mean the difference between life and death as I have seen in recent cases.

Anne Shortall
Principal Lawyer, Medical Negligence
Slater and Gordon

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Compensation Law
Revisiting unfair decisions for abuse survivors

It’s been one year since the doors were opened for child abuse survivors to have a second chance at receiving the financial support and justice they deserve. The Children Legislation Amendment Act 2019 was announced on 14 June, allowing courts to set aside unjust judgements or settlements. The Catholic Church’s Melbourne Response and Towards Healing schemes imposed caps on compensation in years gone by, often giving abuse survivors no choice but to accept totally inadequate settlements considering the horrors experienced in their childhoods. Settlements often required the survivor to sign a deed of release and confidentiality clause preventing them from speaking out or taking further...

Child in hallway
Compensation Law
New review option for unreasonable WorkCover insurer decisions

Injured workers now have the option for WorkSafe to review questionable insurer decisions before taking their dispute to court if it has not been overturned at Conciliation. WorkSafe Victoria has launched the Workers Compensation Independent Review Service, to provide another avenue for injured workers to have their workers’ compensation claim decisions reviewed by WorkSafe. Reviews will be carried out by a new team at WorkSafe, separate from the insurers. They will instruct the insurer to change the decision if it isn’t found to be sustainable. The new service was created in response to the Victorian Ombudsman’s report released last year, following multiple investigations into the...

Man reviewing form
Compensation Law
30 years of the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal

On 1 November 1989 Judge John O’Meally sat for the first time in the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) when it heard its first case. This month, during Asbestos Awareness Month the Tribunal celebrated 30 years of operation. The Tribunal was created by the NSW Parliament after years of long delays in the Supreme Court and District Court which often saw plaintiffs suffering from dust diseases die before their cases could be heard. During the Second Reading Speech on 3 May 1989, Mr Dowd, the then NSW Attorney General said: Honourable members will be aware of the considerable delays that exist in the common law jurisdictions of both the Supreme Court and the...

Asbestos danger sign

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.