Failure to diagnose hereditary XXXX and its medicolegal implications: a @entity14 case.

@entity1 @entity3798 @entity1127 @entity189 @entity3 @entity14 @entity1412 @entity694 @entity1049
PURPOSE: We describe a @entity1 who had precancerous @entity1049 and a positive family history of multiple occurrences of early-onset @entity14 in her first-degree and second-degree relatives consistent with @entity14 . @entity14 diagnosis had not been made before her diagnosis of @entity189 with liver @entity3 . She died at age 20, leading to litigation. Controversies about standards of care, their malpractice implications, and pertinent legal issues are discussed. METHODS: Review of the medical and family history was made by the expert witness ( @entity3798 ) with appropriate documentation of the chronology of symptoms, as derived from depositions. These documents revealed that the @entity1 's mother had repeatedly discussed with the caregivers her concern about the family history of @entity694 and the need for appropriate surveillance. RESULTS: The @entity1 's @entity1049 progressed for a period of three years. Flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed by a nonphysician. The physician who ordered the procedure considered this appropriate because isolated @entity1127 were reported in the @entity1 's father and paternal uncle, which apparently led him to believe that the diagnosis was @entity1412 . During litigation procedures, a pedigree was constructed and found to be consistent with @entity14 . The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff before trial. CONCLUSION: It is essential to understand the natural history of @entity14 , inclusive of the need for surveillance colonoscopy in @entity1 at increased risk by virtue of their position in their family pedigree.
