In the doctors office talking about brain scans, CT, MRI and x ray scan on laptop screen for senior woman patient. Brain diagnosis, medical image CT, or X Ray results in modern private hospital or clinic. Radiologist radiology healthcare system
No news is good news.
At least, that is what most patients reasonably assume after an X-ray, CT scan, MRI, mammogram, or other diagnostic test.
A doctor orders the imaging. You have the test. Someone tells you the results will be sent to your doctor. Then you wait.
Days pass. No phone call. No urgent message appears in the patient portal. No one tells you to schedule another scan, see a specialist, or come back to the office.
So you assume everything must be fine.
But what if it isn’t?
What if the scan actually showed a suspicious mass? What if the radiologist recommended additional imaging that was never ordered? What if an abnormality was visible but incorrectly interpreted as benign? Or what if the radiologist identified something concerning and put it in the report—but no one ever told the patient?
Patients should not be expected to interpret their own MRIs or know that a line buried inside a radiology report requires additional medical care. They depend on the healthcare professionals involved in their care to interpret diagnostic information, review results, communicate significant findings, and take appropriate next steps.
A recent Florida case shows what can happen when that chain breaks down.
A 59-year-old Pensacola woman felt a lump in her breast and did exactly what patients are told to do: she sought medical care and underwent diagnostic imaging. The imaging was interpreted as benign, and she reportedly received a letter telling her the results were normal.
So what happens when the patient did her part—but the diagnosis was wrong?
Months later, after the lump grew larger and became painful, she returned for additional testing. What doctors discovered would dramatically change the course of her life.
Her case illustrates why the familiar expression “no news is good news” can be dangerous in medicine.
Sometimes the problem begins with the image itself: an abnormality is visible but missed. Sometimes it is seen but incorrectly characterized as benign. And sometimes the radiologist correctly identifies the problem, but the finding is never effectively communicated or followed up.
When the missed finding is cancer, a stroke, an aneurysm, internal bleeding, a fracture, or another serious condition, the consequences of that breakdown can be life-changing.
For this Florida patient, the consequences were devastating.
In February 2022, 59-year-old Deborah Higgs felt a lump in her breast and went to Baptist Medical Park in Pensacola for evaluation. She underwent a diagnostic mammogram and breast ultrasound.
According to 2026 reporting by Radiology Business, the radiologist who interpreted the imaging reported the finding as benign. Higgs also reportedly received a letter indicating that her breast imaging results were normal.
But the lump did not disappear.
By October, it had become larger and painful. Higgs returned for further evaluation. This time, additional imaging was interpreted as showing a high suspicion for malignancy. A biopsy subsequently confirmed stage 4 breast cancer.
Higgs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Baptist Health Care and the radiology group involved in her care. In June 2026, the case resolved for approximately $7 million, with $5 million to be paid by Baptist and $2 million by the radiology group.
The settlement was a compromise of disputed claims and was not an admission of fault. The radiologist’s attorney emphasized that the allegations remained allegations.
But the resolution was notable for another reason: it reportedly included changes intended to prevent similar situations in the future. Radiology Business reported that Baptist and the radiology providers agreed to modify certain policies, and the radiologist was required by the Florida Board of Medicine to complete additional continuing medical education involving breast-imaging interpretation.
The case illustrates an important point about radiology malpractice: obtaining the image is only the beginning. Someone must correctly interpret what the image shows, place the finding in the appropriate clinical context, communicate significant results, and recommend appropriate next steps when necessary.
Radiologists are physicians who specialize in interpreting medical images. Depending on the patient’s condition, those images may include X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, mammograms, ultrasounds, PET scans, and other diagnostic studies.
In many cases, the patient never meets the radiologist.
A primary-care physician, emergency physician, surgeon, oncologist, orthopedist, or other healthcare provider orders an imaging study. A technologist performs the scan, and a radiologist then reviews the images and prepares a report describing the findings.
That report can profoundly affect what happens next.
A suspicious mass may lead to a biopsy. Evidence of internal bleeding may require immediate intervention. An abnormality on a brain scan may change how a possible stroke is treated. A lesion may require additional imaging. A fracture that is initially missed may leave a patient walking on an unstable injury.
Radiology is therefore not simply about producing pictures. Interpretation is part of the diagnostic process.
Medical literature has long recognized two broad categories of radiology interpretation errors. A perceptual error can occur when an abnormality is present on the image but is not seen. A cognitive error can occur when the radiologist sees the abnormality but does not correctly understand or appreciate its significance.
A cancerous mass that is completely overlooked is different from a mass that is identified but interpreted as probably benign. Yet either situation can potentially delay the correct diagnosis.
No.
Medicine is not perfect, and neither are medical imaging technologies. Some diseases are extremely difficult to detect. Abnormalities may be subtle. Different conditions can look similar on imaging. Patient movement can affect image quality, and the limitations of a particular imaging method may make certain findings difficult to identify.
Even experienced physicians can reach different reasonable interpretations of the same study.
A missed diagnosis therefore does not automatically establish malpractice.
Under Florida Statute §766.102, a medical negligence claim generally requires proof that a healthcare provider’s actions fell below the prevailing professional standard of care. Florida defines that standard in terms of the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar healthcare providers under the circumstances.
For a radiology case, that may require asking whether a reasonably prudent radiologist in the same specialty should have recognized the abnormality, interpreted it differently, recommended additional evaluation, or communicated the finding differently.
But the radiologist may not be the only provider whose actions need to be examined.
If an imaging report identifies an abnormality or recommends follow-up, questions may also arise about whether the ordering or treating provider reviewed the report, informed the patient, and appropriately responded to the recommendation.
The specific responsibilities of each provider depend on the circumstances. But a patient’s care does not end simply because the scan has been completed and a report has been generated.
One of the most significant questions in a radiology malpractice investigation is often deceptively simple:
What did the original images actually show?
When a patient receives a serious diagnosis months or years after an earlier imaging study was interpreted as normal or benign, specialists may review those earlier images again.
Sometimes the earlier scan genuinely did not show the disease.
But in other cases, a later review may reveal that the abnormality was already visible.
Consider a patient who has a chest X-ray interpreted as normal and is diagnosed with lung cancer a year later. The later diagnosis alone does not establish that the earlier radiologist did anything wrong. The cancer may not have been visible at the time.
But if qualified experts reviewing the earlier image conclude that a suspicious lung nodule was already visible and should reasonably have been identified or investigated, the situation is very different.
The same issue can arise with breast cancer on mammography, tumors on CT or MRI, fractures on X-rays, vascular abnormalities, and other conditions.
Comparing the original images—not merely reading the written reports—can therefore be a critical part of evaluating a potential radiology malpractice case.
Not every imaging-related diagnostic failure occurs because a radiologist failed to see something.
Sometimes the radiologist sees the problem.
The failure occurs afterward.
A radiology report might identify a suspicious mass and recommend additional imaging. A scan may reveal a potentially dangerous incidental finding unrelated to the reason the study was ordered. A radiologist may identify something requiring urgent attention.
But that information only helps the patient if it reaches the appropriate healthcare provider and someone acts on it.
The Florida case Mangoni v. Temkin provides a particularly striking example. According to the appellate decision, a CT scan revealed a cystic structure in the patient’s brain. The patient’s physician attempted to call her once but did not reach her. The court’s opinion states that no further effort was made to communicate the finding despite later opportunities to do so.
Years later, another CT scan revealed that the mass had substantially increased in size, and the patient eventually underwent brain surgery.
The Second District Court of Appeal later discussed a similar issue in Santiago v. Rodriguez. There, the patient alleged that physicians failed to inform her of a possible lung lesion visible on CT imaging and failed to obtain recommended follow-up studies before she was ultimately diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.
These cases demonstrate why diagnostic safety does not end when a radiologist dictates a report.
Depending on the circumstances, questions may involve not only what the radiologist saw, but also whether an urgent or unexpected finding was appropriately communicated; whether the ordering provider received and reviewed the report; whether recommended follow-up imaging was ordered; whether earlier studies were appropriately compared; whether the patient was informed; and whether someone took responsibility for the next step.
A breakdown anywhere in that chain can potentially delay diagnosis.
Breast imaging provides an especially clear example of how interpretation and communication work together.
Since September 2024, updated federal mammography regulations have required facilities to provide patients with information about breast density. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration explains that dense breast tissue can make breast cancer more difficult to detect on a mammogram and is also associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Federal regulations also require mammography facilities to provide patients with written summaries of their results in understandable language. According to the FDA’s Mammography Quality Standards Act information, patients generally must receive a written summary of their mammography results within 30 days. Certain suspicious findings trigger faster communication requirements.
Those rules reflect a larger patient-safety principle: diagnostic information has little value if important findings are not effectively communicated and acted upon.
Patients should also remember that imaging is only one part of a medical evaluation. A “normal” scan does not necessarily mean a new or worsening symptom should be ignored.
If a patient can feel a growing lump, continues to experience unexplained pain, develops new neurological symptoms, or has another persistent problem despite reassuring imaging, continued medical evaluation may be appropriate.
Radiology-related diagnostic errors can involve many different medical conditions.
Cancer is perhaps the most recognizable example. Breast, lung, kidney, pancreatic, bone, brain, and other cancers may first become apparent through diagnostic imaging.
But imaging is also central to diagnosing many non-cancerous emergencies and injuries.
Depending on the type of study and clinical circumstances, missed or incorrectly interpreted findings may involve fractures, spinal injuries, internal bleeding, blood clots, aneurysms, infections, bowel obstructions, appendicitis, strokes, organ damage, and other serious conditions.
The consequences of a delay vary dramatically.
A missed fracture might lead to prolonged pain or improper healing. A missed malignancy may allow cancer to progress before treatment begins. A delayed vascular diagnosis can become an emergency.
That brings us to one of the most important—and often misunderstood—parts of a medical malpractice case.
Suppose an expert concludes that a radiologist should have identified a suspicious abnormality six months earlier.
That may answer one question, but it does not necessarily answer the next:
What difference would an earlier diagnosis have made?
Florida medical malpractice law requires more than proof of a mistake. Under §766.102, the patient generally must also establish that the injury was caused by the breach of the applicable professional standard of care.
In a delayed cancer diagnosis case, that may involve evaluating whether the disease was at a different stage when it should have been detected, what treatment would have been available at that point, and whether the delay affected prognosis or treatment options.
For other conditions, the questions will be different.
Would an earlier diagnosis have prevented neurological damage? Would a fracture have healed differently if it had been immobilized immediately? Could earlier treatment of an infection have prevented its spread? Would detecting internal bleeding sooner have changed the patient’s course?
These questions often require specialists in both radiology and the underlying medical condition.
This is why reviewing a potential radiology malpractice case usually requires much more than looking at a single report.
Patients understandably focus on their written radiology reports because those reports are what usually appear in a medical chart or patient portal.
But in a potential imaging-misread case, the actual images may be extremely important.
The original X-ray, CT scan, MRI, mammogram, or ultrasound can potentially be reviewed independently by another qualified radiologist. Prior and subsequent imaging can also be compared to determine how a finding changed over time.
Medical records may provide additional context, including the reason the study was ordered, symptoms reported by the patient, previous diagnoses, follow-up recommendations, communications between providers, and what happened after the imaging was completed.
That broader timeline can help answer several different questions:
Was the abnormality visible?
Should it have been recognized?
Was it appropriately characterized?
Was follow-up recommended?
Was the finding communicated?
Did anyone act on it?
And, critically, did the delay cause additional harm?
Patients facing a serious diagnosis may want copies of both their radiology reports and the actual imaging studies.
That distinction is important.
A report contains the radiologist’s interpretation. The images are the underlying medical information on which that interpretation was based.
Patients seeking a second opinion can ask whether the new physician or radiologist has access to prior studies for comparison. Comparing current imaging with older studies can sometimes help physicians determine whether an abnormality is new, stable, or changing.
Patients should also pay attention to recommendations contained in imaging reports. Phrases such as “additional imaging recommended,” “clinical correlation recommended,” or a recommendation for repeat imaging within a particular time period may warrant a conversation with the ordering physician about what happens next.
And there is another practical lesson for patients:
Do not assume silence necessarily means a test was normal.
If you undergo imaging and do not receive the result, ask for it. If a report is available in your patient portal and you do not understand it, ask the provider who ordered the study to explain it. If the report recommends follow-up, ask what the next step is and when it should happen.
Patients should not have to manage the healthcare system themselves. But knowing the result of a diagnostic test provides an additional opportunity to catch a communication breakdown before months or years pass.
Radiology cases can create unusual timing issues because the patient may not discover the alleged error when the original image was interpreted.
The entire problem may be that the patient was told the imaging was normal—or was never told anything at all.
Under Florida Statute §95.11, medical malpractice claims are subject to specific time limitations, including provisions addressing when an incident is discovered or should have been discovered with due diligence, as well as a statute of repose and certain statutory exceptions.
Those deadlines can become complicated in delayed-diagnosis cases, particularly when months or years pass between the original imaging study and the eventual diagnosis.
Anyone concerned that an earlier medical image may have been misinterpreted should therefore avoid assuming that the legal deadline necessarily begins on the date of the later diagnosis. The specific facts and timeline matter.
Radiology has transformed modern medicine. Physicians can identify disease and injury inside the body in ways that would have been unimaginable generations ago.
But an image does not diagnose a patient by itself.
A healthcare professional must interpret it. The result must reach the appropriate people. Significant findings must be communicated. Recommended follow-up must be considered. And when additional care is necessary, someone must take the next step.
Sometimes an abnormality simply could not reasonably have been detected earlier. Sometimes two competent radiologists may reasonably disagree about a difficult image. And sometimes a bad medical outcome occurs even when everyone involved provided appropriate care.
But there are also situations in which a serious abnormality was visible and should reasonably have been recognized—or in which the abnormality was recognized, but the patient never learned about it and appropriate follow-up never occurred.
For patients and families, discovering that possibility after a cancer has progressed or another serious condition has worsened can be devastating.
It also changes the question.
Instead of asking only, “Did the radiologist miss it?”, it may be necessary to ask:
Who knew about the abnormal finding, who should have known, what should have happened next—and why didn’t the patient know?
At Travieso McLeod, the firm represents individuals and families in complex medical malpractice, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases throughout Florida. Evaluating a potential radiology malpractice case can require a detailed review of not only the patient’s medical records, but the original diagnostic images, subsequent imaging, communications among healthcare providers, and the medical consequences of any delay.
Understanding what happened often begins by going back to the image itself. Request a free consultation online or give us a call today at (904) 204-3013.
For informational purposes only. This article does not constitute legal or medical advice.
Travieso McLeod Founding Partner, Robert Travieso, was recently featured in the Florida Times-Union with a…
Most patients have experienced sitting in a medical office or hospital and being handed a…
We are proud to share that Travieso McLeod was recently featured in Attorney at Law…
For most families, childbirth is expected to be one of the happiest and most emotional…
Most people assume that if they are seriously injured by medical negligence or another person’s…
Most people assume that if a doctor, hospital, or healthcare provider causes catastrophic harm through…