Papacek v. Anderson, et al
Case Background
Michelle Papacek filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two radiologists over their alleged failure to diagnose breast cancer. The lawsuit was filed in the Indiana Superior Court, Hamilton County. Judge William J. Hughes presided over this lawsuit. [Case number: 29D03-2212-CT-9807]Cause
On August 24, 2018, Michelle Papacek, aged 42, attended her annual mammogram screening. Dr. Thomas Hagman, a radiologist in Indianapolis and an employee of Northwest Radiology Network, interpreted the results and found no signs of malignancy. He made no recommendations for further testing. Almost a year later, on July 26, 2019, Papacek returned for another mammogram. This time, Dr. Caryn Anderson, another radiologist employed by Northwest Radiology Network, reviewed the results and also found no abnormalities or evidence of malignancy, making no recommendations for additional evaluation.
However, on October 15, 2019, Papacek visited her gynecologist, reporting a lump in her left breast. The staff confirmed the lump's presence and referred her to a hematologist/oncologist. Two weeks later, on October 30, 2019, the oncologist diagnosed her with invasive ductal carcinoma in her left breast, which had spread to her lymph nodes. As a result, Papacek began chemotherapy on November 13, 2019.
The chemotherapy caused severe side effects, and five months later, on April 21, 2020, she underwent a double mastectomy, followed by radiation treatments.
Papacek filed a complaint with a medical review panel, criticizing Dr. Hagman and Dr. Anderson for their failure to diagnose her breast cancer. The panel included Dr. Janushi Dalal, Dr. Carlos Vieira, and Dr. Melissa Bosma. The panel's opinion was mixed. Dr. Dalal found no breach of care by Dr. Hagman but agreed with the breach by Dr. Anderson. Drs. Vieira and Bosma believed both doctors had breached the standard of care. However, all three-panel members concluded they could not determine if the breaches had contributed to Papacek's damages.
Damages
Plaintiffs sought damages for the losses and injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's failure to diagnose Michelle with breast cancer.Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Michelle Papacek | Jason Papacek
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kelley J. Johnson | Katherine A. Franke
- Experts for Plaintiff(s): Dr. Gretchen Green | Dr. Abhimanyu Ghose
- Defendant(s): Dr. Thomas Hagman | Dr. Caryn Anderson | Northwest Radiology Network
- Counsel for Defendant(s): David S. Strite | Rachel Dalton Dearmond
- Experts for Defendant(s): Dr. Donald Lannin
Claims
Papacek filed a lawsuit against Dr. Hagman and Dr. Anderson based on the claims mentioned earlier. She also included their employer, Northwest Radiology Network, as a codefendant, citing vicarious liability. Additionally, Papacek's husband, Jason Papacek, filed a separate claim for his loss of consortium.
Defense
The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs' claims against Dr. Hagman. However, they admitted the claims against Dr. Anderson but argued that she did not cause any injury to the Plaintiffs.
Expert Testimony
The Plaintiffs named Dr. Gretchen Green, a diagnostic radiologist from Greensboro, NC, and Dr. Abhimanyu Ghose, an oncologist from Tempe, AZ, as their expert witnesses. Dr. Ghose stated that if Papacek had been correctly diagnosed a year or more earlier, her cancer likely would have been at Stage I without spreading to her lymph nodes. In that case, she would not have required chemotherapy, a mastectomy, or radiation treatments. The defense named Dr. Donald Lannin, a surgeon from New Haven, CT, as their expert witness.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial over five days in Noblesville. On August 30, 2024, the jury delivered a mixed verdict, finding in favor of the Plaintiffs against Dr. Anderson and Northwest Radiology Network. They awarded Michelle Papacek $50,000 in damages. However, the jury rejected Jason Papacek’s consortium claim and awarded him no damages. Additionally, the jury ruled in favor of Dr. Hagman, delivering a defense verdict. The court entered a judgment based on the verdict, which has since been satisfied.
