September 1st, 2009 05:48 PM #1Junior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Lung Cancer diagnosis: completely wrong (false-positive) with consequences
In Sept. 2006 I was diagnosed with lung cancer. Surgery was scheduled (non-laparoscopic) with a segment of upper right lung identified and resected. At this time other sternal/thoracic tissue was also extracted from various suspect lymph nodes, several of which were removed.
Having received a dismal and wrenching prognosis, I specifically asked about risk of miscalculation, and estimate for projected outcome should I elect to decline. More than two months elapsed before the surgery could be scheduled, owed, I was told, to existing demands on surgeon/staff, and hospital time constraints. My choice in this matter, I was told, was either adapt or seek intervention elsewhere and also replace my physician. A prior consensus determined needle biopsy of the anomaly, prior to planned resection, either had been unneeded or simply unjustified. In any case, with respect to this commonly used diagnostic tool, I wasn’t presented the option nor did I ever decline.
The actual surgery was covered by private insurance. The policy through this insurer has since become unavailable to me and was replaced by the employer for reasons I do not know. One of the questions asked by the current insurer is whether or not the condition is related to any malpractice. Both due to conditions I have developed resulting from this procedure, as well as exacerbates, I fear being dropped by my insurer and excluded from future insurance.
When the procedure took place the mass on extraction was discovered to be a granuloma with necrosis -- Basically an infection.
It is worthy of note, I had reasonably considered initial consultation a valid second-opinion, having received elsewhere and prior failed treatment for recurrent bronchial infection. Needless to say, it is unlikely in retrospect I would consider it now to be so.
While the initial situation has long stabilized, it has since grown increasingly complex owing to circumstances with which I believe exist unmistakable correlation. My primary physician initially suggested this, and was in no way influenced by anything I have said. As for the condition/s, each to varying degrees inhibit mobility, are disfiguring, and contribute overall to a diminished quality of life through robbing me of my routine. I now experience a life-altering array of maladies with which I no longer can contend.
I am wondering whether I, along with some possibly others, may simply have been scammed, all with the help of a benevolent insurer, who, not only can on a whim deny or exclude coverage ¾ but who in fact can conspire setting insureds up for more of the future same!