The case involved allegations that  FKB’s client, a radiologist, failed to diagnose a vesicovaginal fistula (an abnormal hole between the bladder and vagina) on a CT scan.  The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a fistula found on a CT scan approximately 5 weeks later, and required surgical repair.  As a result of the alleged delay in diagnosis, plaintiff claimed she suffered urinary incontinence, pain and suffering. 

FKB submitted a motion for summary judgment arguing that FKB’s client appropriately interpreted the CT scan at issue.   Summary judgment motions in radiology cases are rarely granted, as typically plaintiffs will retain an expert to opine that something was missed on the film in retrospect.  This case had the additional hurdle in that a fistula was found on a CT scan only 5 weeks after the one read by our client.  However, based on the strength of our motion papers, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to discontinue the action against FKB’s client.