A radiology error claim is a medical malpractice claim based on a failure to correctly perform, read, report or follow up on a medical imaging study, such as an X-ray, CT scan, MRI, ultrasound or mammogram, where the failure delayed diagnosis or treatment and caused harm. The error might belong to the radiologist who read the image, the technologist who took it, the doctor who ordered it, or the system meant to deliver the result.
Blank Kim Injury Law reviews radiology claims for patients across Northern Virginia from our Fairfax office. We obtain the actual images, not just the written report, and have them reviewed by qualified radiologists. Attorney Robert Kim speaks Korean, and our paralegal team speaks Spanish.
The four kinds of radiology errors
Perception errors
The finding is visible on the image, but the radiologist does not notice it. Small lung nodules, subtle fractures, early breast cancers and small brain bleeds are frequent examples. Research on radiology errors has long found that missed findings are the largest category.
Interpretation errors
The radiologist sees the finding but misjudges what it means, for example calling a suspicious mass benign, or failing to suggest the further testing the finding calls for.
Communication errors
The radiologist sees and correctly interprets an urgent finding, but it never reaches the doctor who can act on it. A report may sit unread in an inbox, go to a physician who is no longer treating the patient, or recommend follow-up that nobody schedules. Critical findings, such as a bleed or a collapsed lung, are supposed to be called directly to the treating team.
Technical and ordering errors
The wrong study is ordered, the wrong body part is scanned, the images are of poor quality, or contrast is given to a patient with a known allergy or kidney problem. Sometimes the right study is simply never ordered, which overlaps with delayed diagnosis claims.
Radiology errors behind the claims we review
- A mammogram or breast ultrasound read as normal when an early cancer was visible, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis
- A chest X-ray or CT with a lung nodule that was noted but never followed up
- A head CT in the emergency department read as normal when it showed early signs of stroke or bleeding
- A spine MRI showing severe nerve compression that did not prompt emergency surgery, as in cauda equina syndrome
- A CT angiogram where a pulmonary embolism or an aortic tear was overlooked
- Fractures missed on X-rays after a crash or a fall, including neck fractures
- An incidental finding, such as a kidney or adrenal mass, mentioned in the report but never passed to the patient
Many of these happen at night or on weekends, when scans from Northern Virginia emergency departments may be read by a remote teleradiology service. The same standard of care applies whether the radiologist sits down the hall or several states away.
Hindsight bias and why the images matter
Once a cancer has been diagnosed, looking back at an older scan and finding the tumor is easy. Defense lawyers call this hindsight bias, and they argue that a radiologist reading the scan without knowing the answer could reasonably have missed it.
Our response is to have the original images reviewed under conditions that account for hindsight. That can include asking qualified radiologists to review the study alongside others, without being told which one was missed. Measurements of the finding on the earlier study, and comparison with prior images the radiologist had access to, show whether it was reasonably detectable at the time.
Keep in mind that the written report is only a summary. We request the images themselves, in their original digital format, from each imaging center or hospital. Imaging centers in Fairfax, Tysons, Reston and elsewhere keep them for a limited time, so early requests matter.
Did the delay change the outcome?
Proving the radiologist missed something is only half the case. Virginia malpractice claims also require proof that the error caused harm, meaning that, more likely than not, the patient’s outcome would have been meaningfully better if the finding had been caught when it should have been.
In a cancer case, that means showing the tumor would have been at an earlier, more treatable stage. In a stroke or bleed case, it means showing the treatment available at the time would have limited the damage. Oncologists, neurologists and surgeons, not only radiologists, address this question.
Virginia rules and deadlines for radiology claims
A radiologist’s reading is judged against the statewide standard of care set out in Va. Code § 8.01-581.20. Before a lawsuit is served, a qualified expert witness must provide a written opinion supporting the claim under Va. Code § 8.01-20.1, and in these cases that review comes from a radiologist.
The filing deadline raises special problems in radiology cases, because the patient often does not learn of the missed finding until long after the scan. Virginia generally allows two years from the negligent act under Va. Code § 8.01-243(A). Virginia law includes limited exceptions, including for certain failures to diagnose cancer, and special rules for children under Va. Code § 8.01-243(C). Whether an exception fits depends closely on the facts, so do not assume either that you are too late or that you have plenty of time.
Total damages in a Virginia malpractice case are subject to the cap in Va. Code § 8.01-581.15, adjusted each July 1. Our guide to Virginia medical malpractice laws explains each of these rules.
How we investigate a radiology error claim
- Free case review. Tell us about the scan, the later diagnosis and your treatment through the case review form or by phone.
- Images and reports. We obtain every relevant study in digital form, with the reports, orders and any records of calls about critical findings.
- Radiology review. A qualified radiologist reviews whether the finding should have been seen, interpreted or communicated differently.
- Causation review. Treating-field physicians address whether earlier detection would have changed the outcome.
- The claim. We pursue the radiologist, their group, the imaging center or hospital and any ordering physician whose failure contributed.
