$16.7 Million Verdict After Radiologist Missed Lung Cancer on Chest X-Ray at Brigham and Women's

In October 2006, Jeanne Ellis, then 44, went to the Brigham and Women's Hospital emergency room with a persistent cough. A physician ordered a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia. Radiologist Dr. Peter Clarke reviewed the image and reported it as normal. Ellis was sent home with a diagnosis of upper respiratory infection and a course of antibiotics.

More than a year later, Ellis returned with worsening symptoms. A CT scan this time revealed advanced lung cancer. Evidence presented at trial showed that the 2006 chest X-ray had contained a visible 1.5-centimeter nodule in Ellis's upper right lung, one Dr. Clarke had not identified or flagged. By the time the CT scan confirmed the diagnosis in November 2007, the cancer had progressed to Stage IV.

Ellis died in August 2008 at age 47. The disease had spread to her kidney, liver, spine, and pelvis. Her daughter, Johnette Ellis, brought suit on behalf of her mother's estate, alleging that a proper reading of the 2006 X-ray would have caught the cancer at a far earlier, more treatable stage.

Robert Higgins of Lubin and Meyer tried the case for the plaintiff. The defense argued that Dr. Clarke had met the applicable standard of care for a radiologist interpreting an emergency department film. The plaintiff's expert, a diagnostic radiologist who regularly read emergency department X-rays, testified that the nodule was detectable and that its identification in 2006 would have prompted workup and earlier treatment.

After roughly three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of $11 million in base damages, including $1 million for conscious pain and suffering, $3 million for Johnette Ellis's loss of consortium through the verdict date, and $7 million for future loss of consortium. With statutory interest, the total reached $16.7 million. Defense counsel stated he would seek a new trial, but Judge Bonnie MacLeod's rulings were later affirmed. The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the verdict in full, rejecting Clarke's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur, and finding the damages not 'greatly disproportionate to the injury proven.'