Utah Supreme Court Ruling Scores a Victory for Cancer Survivors

By Brittany Golledge

Published on November 23, 2005

The Utah Supreme Court clarified its position on medical malpractice lawsuits last Tuesday, correcting the misconception that cancer survivors in remission cannot sue their physicians for failure to diagnose.

The clarification came in response to an appeal filed by plaintiff Jamie Medved after her medical malpractice lawsuit was dismissed in 2001. Medved was seeking damages from her gynecologist and plastic surgeon, claiming both doctors failed to diagnose her breast cancer in a timely manner and that the delay in diagnosis resulted in her having to undergo mastectomy and other more invasive treatments. Part of the damages claim would have included restitution for future medical expenses based on the likelihood of the cancer recurring.

Medved's suit was dismissed in accordance with a 1996 Utah Supreme Court ruling that had been interpreted by state judges to mean that medical malpractice lawsuits cannot be filed by cancer patients who were in remission. According to Medved's attorneys, lawsuits filed by cancer survivors like Jaime had been consistently thrown out of court for almost a decade in keeping with the 1996 ruling.

In an unusual step, the Utah Supreme Court has extended the statute of limitations for plaintiffs affected by the 1996 ruling, giving many cancer patients a new two-year window to file medical malpractice lawsuits.

Comment on this article →