Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaledition.com/i/45928
++++++++++++++++++++ + + ++++++++++++++++++++ LEGAL-EASE +++ +++ Damages in Negligence Claims: ONE CENTIMETER IS ENOUGH By Matthew R. Hunt, Esq. Ohio St.3d), the Plaintiff, Lonna Loudin ("Loudin"), was a patient of a breast imaging center ("Center"), which was owned and operated by a particular radiology group ("Radiology"). From 1997 through 2004, Loudin went to the Center for yearly mammograms, which were interpreted as normal. Prior to the initiation of her lawsuit in 2005, Loudin's most recent "normal" mammogram was conducted in 2003 at the Center. In the spring of 2004, Loudin detected IN a lump in her left breast during a self- examination. As a result, Loudin had a THE OHIO SUPREME Court case of Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Services, Inc., et al (128 mammogram at the Center that revealed a mass which was found to be cancerous. According to the expert testimony that Loudin introduced at trial, the mass had grown from one centimeter to two centimeters between her 2003 and 2004 mammograms. Loudin underwent a lumpectomy, eight rounds of chemo- therapy, and six weeks of radiation therapy and began hormone therapy. As of October 2005, the cancer had not returned. Loudin fi led medical malpractice claims against the Center, Radiology and her treat- ing doctor (collectively the "Defendants"). Loudin alleged that the Defendants breached the required duty of care by failing to detect and commence treatment for her cancer upon examination of her 2003 mammogram fi lms, which revealed a visible one centimeter mass. In Ohio, the elements required to establish a claim for negligence of a medi- cal professional are: 1.) a duty running from the defendant to the plaintiff; 2.) the defendant's breach of that duty; 3.) damages sustained by the plaintiff; and 4.) proximate causation of the damages by the defendant's breach of duty. In Loudin, the Defendants conceded the fi rst two elements, and instead argued that Loudin did not suffer any damage as a result of the breach. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled for Loudin and held that: 1.) There is no requirement in Ohio that a physical injury in a traditional negligence case cause pain or otherwise manifest itself so that the plaintiff is aware of its presence and deleterious effect at all times; 2.) If Loudin was properly diagnosed in 2003, she would not have undergone eight rounds of chemotherapy; and 3.) The growth and metastasis of cancer are cognizable physical injuries. Cancer does not need to advance to the point of neces- sitating the removal of an organ, limb, breast or larger lump. The destruction of additional healthy cells and the increased number of cancer cells are physical injuries, not mere physical changes. As a result, it appears that even the slightest "damage" to a patient could result in a claim against their provider. NOTE: This general summary of the law should not be used to solve individual problems since slight changes in the fact situation may require a material variance in the applicable legal advice. Matthew Hunt is an attorney at the law fi rm of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffi ths & Dougherty Co., LPA in Canton, Ohio. n