Summary Of Neyman Vs. Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services

Neyman v. Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services presents a case between the plaintiff, the spouse of a deceased breast cancer patient, and her treating physician, Dr. Leonid Sorkin, and Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services. The plaintiff’s counsel argues that Dr. Sorkin deviated from the standard of care and therefore delayed the patient’s diagnosis and treatment which affected her prognosis (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). The plaintiff’s position against Doshi Diagnostic was that the radiologist should have suggested to Dr. Sorkin that a mammogram be performed as a follow-up to the negative findings on the sonogram (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017).

On March 6, 2016, Olena Neyman presented to Dr. Sorkin with the complaint of left nipple discharge, yellowish green in color and pus-like (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). The patient had a prior relationship with the physician, as he had been her treating OBGYN with her son (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017).

Doshi, 2017). Doshi was able to support the fact that it had limited responsibility in the patient’s care, by performing and interpreting the sonogram and thus the motion for summary judgment was properly granted (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). In the case against Sorkin, the plaintiff’s burden in proving medical malpractice was only to bring enough evidence that a reasonable person could deduct that it was more likely than not that injury was caused by the defendant (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). The main supporting factor that lost the case for Sorkin was the fact that he could not refute the suggestion by the plaintiff’s expert that if chemotherapy would have been initiated sooner, then that patient’s outcome could have been better (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). Had perhaps the patient been diagnosed and treatment began earlier her chance of recovery could have increased and the incidence of suffering reduced; therefore Sorkin diminished the patient’s chance of an improved outcome (Neyman v. Doshi,