Misread MRI and CT Scan FAQs

An inaccurate interpretation becomes a potential malpractice claim when a medical professional fails to use the skill and care reasonably expected under the circumstances and that failure causes injury. A subtle abnormality that was not reasonably identifiable on the available study does not establish negligence merely because a later examination reveals it. The analysis of whether malpractice occurred instead must consider the actual images, the reason for the examination, the clinical history available to the reader, and whether an appropriately careful interpretation would have identified a concerning finding. In a misread MRI and CT scan investigation, an independent specialist may assess whether a visible abnormality was overlooked, a suspicious finding was improperly dismissed, or a report failed to recommend necessary clarification.

Numerous parties may be responsible when a scan report did not lead to proper care, including the radiologist, the clinician who ordered the study, or another provider with a duty to act on the results. A radiologist might fail to recognize an acute bleed or communicate an urgent finding. A treating physician might receive a report recommending additional evaluation but never arrange it. A hospital's role may require examining employment relationships and staff conduct. The original interpretation is only part of the evidence. Investigators may compare preliminary and final reports, review later amendments, identify who received notifications, and examine whether a meaningful handoff occurred before discharge. Whether the standard of care required direct communication depends on the finding and specific facts of the case.

To show that an imaging mistake caused additional injury, a patient must establish that the provider owed them duty, a breach of the duty owed, a causal connection, and compensable harm. Expert testimony is generally needed to explain the standard of care and how the defendant’s response to the scan demonstrated a departure from the standard. Expert testimony is also usually necessary to show that the defendant’s actions or omissions caused compensable harm, and to quantify the damages the plaintiff suffered.

Recoverable damages may address the physical, financial, and personal consequences that the error caused. Depending on the evidence, those losses may include additional hospitalization, corrective procedures, rehabilitation, prescription costs, lost income, diminished earning capacity, and future medical or assistance needs. Pain and suffering can reflect the experience of additional illness, invasive treatment, impaired mobility, and lasting limitations. A patient who already had a serious condition may still have a claim for an avoidable worsening of that condition, but the evaluation must distinguish the underlying disease from the additional harm associated with the delay. Medical records, employment information, rehabilitation assessments, and testimony about daily functioning can help establish that difference.