This is clear from the sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, in which the court partially upholds the appeal filed by the woman, represented by the lawyer Carmen Romero, against the dismissal due to administrative silence of the claim made before the Generalitat Valencian.
Initially, the woman was demanding an administrative compensation of 200,000 euros, although it increased to 300,000 euros when the matter was brought to justice. The court, after studying the facts, recognizes loss of opportunity for the patient and impairments related to it but leaves the compensation at 30,000 euros.
The 45-year-old woman went to the Requena Hospital in March where, according to the lawsuit, she referred to a tumor in the left breast and a family history. However, a mammogram, ultrasound, or bilateral MRI was not performed.
When she returned for review in June, she was also not referred for a sample to be taken and, a month later, she was sent home without any radiological examination. In September of that year, the woman was treated in the emergency room due to the appearance of a nodule in her breast, although it was not until October that she underwent a biopsy and the cancer was reported.
The court estimates that there was a delay in the diagnosis but since June and not since March, as the patient maintained. In this regard, it states that despite the woman saying that in March she referred to a tumor after a lump in the breast was noticed on self-palpation in January and that she had a family history, the record states that she went to the doctor for breast pain without a history and no palpable lesions or signs of mastitis were identified.
Ultrasound scans were then performed on both breasts of the woman, who was breastfeeding, and an ultrasound check-up was prescribed in three months. This action, in the opinion of the court, is in no way reprehensible.
But he did see inadequate health care in the months of June and July, when follow-up with ultrasound control was maintained because a single cyst was identified that was emptied with a puncture. At this point, the court warns that by observing growth and change in the characteristics of the cyst with respect to March, “the biopsy of the same was adequate” -as the Administration also collected in its answer to the claim when it said that the biopsy it was restricted to cases in which a growth or change in the characteristics of the cyst was observed.
In February 2015, the woman underwent a right modified radical mastectomy and mastectomy with lymph node biopsy in the left breast, in addition to adjuvant treatment. In March 2017 the patient was disease free.
– .
