The question behind the delay
A missed or late diagnosis usually raises two questions. The first is whether a reasonably careful clinician, looking at the symptoms, history, and test results available at the time, would have pursued the possibility sooner. The second, and often the harder one, is whether earlier detection would have changed the treatment or the outcome. Some conditions progress in ways that make earlier treatment clearly better, while for others the course might have been much the same. Delayed diagnosis malpractice reviews therefore depend heavily on an accurate timeline of what was known, and by whom, at each point.
Following the trail of results
Many delays involve a test result that was ordered but never followed up, a referral that did not happen, or a radiology finding that did not reach the treating doctor. Records from each provider, together with patient portal messages, appointment histories, and imaging reports, help reconstruct who had what information and when. Original imaging can be read again by independent radiologists, which is often more revealing than the written report. Messages you sent describing your symptoms, and the replies you received, can matter as well. These pieces are usually spread across several systems that do not talk to one another.
Timing rules for missed diagnoses
The deadline for a malpractice claim generally runs from the date of the care in question, but some situations measure it differently, for instance when the same provider kept treating the condition. New York has adopted a special rule for certain missed cancer diagnoses that can tie the deadline to when the error was or should have been discovered, subject to an outer limit. Because these rules are technical, it is worth having timing reviewed promptly once the diagnosis is made. In a first conversation we build a timeline from your records and identify each provider involved. We then explain what a medical review would need to examine.
