A family was sent home with the phrases “normal results” and “insignificant findings” when the patient was 60 years old (18/11/2021), despite having undergone surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer.
This is what a family pursuing legal action against a well-known diagnostic centre and doctor claims, whose report contained no findings revealing pancreatic cancer.
The patient died before three years had passed since the examination due to the doctor’s negligence at the medical centre and failure to correctly diagnose through imaging tests.
The case was brought to the attention of Phileleftheros and Fanis Makrides, concerning legal action taken by relatives of the deceased, who died on 24 September 2024 from metastatic pancreatic cancer.
The unfortunate woman lived normally, relying on the three-year-old report from the doctor under investigation, and only after complications and 30 months after the first examination did she undergo a new test at the same diagnostic centre (2/7/2023).
The results showed pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis.
Furthermore, the family’s lawsuit notes that during the examination dated 18/11/2021, the deceased already had damage to the pancreatic tail, without it having developed into peritoneal disease, when the diagnostic centre doctor “neglected or failed to locate or record this in the medical certificate issued”.
It is noted that this behaviour or these omissions or this incorrect diagnosis or these erroneous conclusions or findings or results from the defendants (doctor and diagnostic centre) constitute the most serious negligence or breach of duty.
Consequently – we emphasise – the deceased was delayed approximately two years in timely detection, diagnosis, prompt treatment and receiving appropriate therapy to address or reduce or prevent worsening of the problem she faced and which tormented her.
We are in a position to know this case, having discussed the anguish of relatives of this prematurely and unjustly lost mother and the diagnoses and examinations, which is why we repeat what was recorded in Phileleftheros’s report.
The unfortunate woman cannot return, but we shall always have a “why the hell” in our thoughts. Because if some people had done their job and what we call “prevention” had functioned, we would not be discussing all this today – the death, the negligence, the sloppiness, and the incompetence.
This woman, who never harmed an ant in her life but was not even given the right to fight on equal terms with cancer, would now be enjoying her grandchild and her children’s joys.
And her family would not be forced to begin this struggle, not for their personal prestige, but to prevent repetition of this damned criminal negligence that seriously harms such a small place as ours, to prevent another patient from experiencing a similar situation.
For this and many, many other reasons, we stand beside them. Always.
