Case Study: Delayed Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis

When “Negative” Really Meant “We Don’t Know”

How a Doctor’s Silence Turned Curable Cancer Into a Life or Death Battle for Survival

What should have been a routine evaluation for a woman in Armstrong County turned into a harrowing battle for survival due to a series of avoidable medical oversights. In November 2021, Patricia, a 59-year-old woman, sought medical help for post-menopausal bleeding—a classic “red flag” symptom that every gynecologist knows requires immediate investigation for endometrial cancer.

Despite performing diagnostic tests, her physician and medical staff at a Western Pennsylvania medical practice failed to follow the medical standard of care when those tests returned inconclusive results. Instead of being told her biopsy had failed to obtain viable tissue and that she required further surgical evaluation, Patricia was left in the dark about the true nature of her test results.

A catastrophic communication breakdown between the doctor and her Licensed Practical Nurse led Patricia to believe her results were “negative”—that she was cancer-free. Eight months later, what was likely a highly treatable, early-stage cancer had progressed to Stage III endometrial cancer, leaving her with a significantly decreased life expectancy and a terminal prognosis.

This is the story of how Lupetin & Unatin, LLC stepped in to demand justice for Patricia and her husband, Robert, uncovering a web of negligence and systemic failure through aggressive litigation—and securing devastating admissions from both the physician and her nurse that they had failed to meet the medical standard of care.

The Human Story: Who is Patricia?

Before the shadow of a Stage III diagnosis took hold, Patricia was a woman defined by movement. She was the pulse of her Kittanning home—a wife, a neighbor, and a constant presence in the Western Pennsylvania woods she loved. For Patricia and her husband, Robert, “home” was rarely four walls; it was a hiking trail with their dogs and the quiet vitality of the outdoors. She wasn’t just a patient in a file; she was an active, health-conscious woman who treated her well-being with the same dedication she gave to her family.

Patricia was proactive about her medical care, attending her annual gynecological exams religiously and trusting her doctors implicitly. When she noticed post-menopausal bleeding in late 2021, she did exactly what she was supposed to do: she immediately scheduled an appointment with her gynecologist. She answered every phone call from the medical office. She listened carefully to the information provided. She followed every instruction given to her.

Patricia was what both the doctor and nurse would later admit under oath was “a compliant patient.”

She trusted the medical system to protect her. That trust was betrayed.

Understanding Post-Menopausal Bleeding: Why This Was Always an Emergency

Post-menopausal bleeding is cancer until proven otherwise. This isn’t just a saying among gynecologists—it’s a fundamental principle of women’s health that every OB/GYN learns in medical school and carries throughout their career.

The defendant physician herself testified under oath that when a patient presents with post-menopausal bleeding, “the primary goal is to exclude endometrial cancer” because it is the most serious potential cause. She acknowledged that post-menopausal bleeding is always considered abnormal and requires thorough investigation.

Why Is Post-Menopausal Bleeding So Serious?

When a woman has gone through menopause, her periods have stopped permanently. Any bleeding that occurs after menopause is abnormal and must be investigated immediately because:

• Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic cancer in the United States
• Post-menopausal bleeding is the presenting symptom in 90% of endometrial cancer cases
• Early detection is critical: Stage I endometrial cancer has a 5-year survival rate of over 95%, while Stage III drops to approximately 50-70%
• Time matters: Every month of delay allows cancer to grow, invade deeper into the uterine wall, and potentially spread to lymph nodes and other organs

The defendant doctor documented Patricia’s multiple risk factors for endometrial cancer, including:

• Age 59 (peak incidence is between ages 55-65)
• Nulliparity (never having been pregnant, which increases risk)
• Family history of uterine cancer (a significant genetic risk factor)

And yet, when the initial tests came back inconclusive, the physician failed to ensure that Patricia understood the gravity of her situation or received the necessary follow-up care.

The Medical Breakdown: What the Doctor Admitted Under Oath

Step 1: The Initial Workup (November 23, 2021)

When Patricia presented with post-menopausal bleeding and pelvic pain, the defendant physician correctly identified the need for diagnostic testing to rule out endometrial cancer. She ordered:

1. Office endometrial biopsy – to obtain a sample of the uterine lining for pathological examination
2. Transvaginal ultrasound – to visualize the thickness and characteristics of the endometrial lining
3. Pap smear – to screen for cervical abnormalities

So far, the physician was following the standard of care. But what happened next was a catastrophic failure.

Step 2: The Failed Biopsy (November 24, 2021)

The pathology report for Patricia’s endometrial biopsy came back on November 24, 2021:

“No viable endometrial tissue seen”

The pathologist found only benign cervical tissue (a cervical polyp), which meant the physician had inadvertently sampled the cervix instead of successfully accessing the uterine cavity where endometrial cancer develops.

The Doctor’s Admission Under Oath: When questioned during her deposition, the defendant admitted that this pathology report “provided no useful diagnostic information to rule out cancer.”

The test didn’t prove Patricia was safe—it proved nothing at all. It was not a “negative” result; it was a failed test.

Step 3: The Inconclusive Ultrasound (November 29, 2021)

The transvaginal ultrasound report came back on November 29, 2021:

“The endometrium is not visualized”

The ultrasound could not see the lining of Patricia’s uterus, providing no information about whether cancer was present.

The Doctor’s Admission Under Oath: The defendant acknowledged that this ultrasound report also “failed to provide useful diagnostic information” to rule out cancer.

Step 4: The Critical Moment—November 29, 2021

By November 29, 2021, the defendant physician had received both the inconclusive biopsy and the inconclusive ultrasound. She now faced a patient with:

• Post-menopausal bleeding (the #1 warning sign of endometrial cancer)
• Multiple risk factors for endometrial cancer
• Two failed diagnostic tests that provided no information to rule out cancer

The Doctor’s Admission Under Oath: When asked directly during her deposition, the defendant admitted that as of November 29, 2021, she had failed to rule out endometrial cancer in Patricia.

This was the critical moment where immediate action should have been taken. Instead, what followed was a communication breakdown that would cost Patricia years of her life.

The Breach of Standard of Care: The Physician’s Own Admissions

What the Standard of Care Required

During her deposition, the defendant physician was asked: What did the medical standard of care require her to do after receiving inconclusive test results in a patient with post-menopausal bleeding?

The Doctor’s Answer Under Oath: She testified that the standard of care required that Patricia “be offered both a Dilation and Curettage (D&C) and a hysterectomy” following the inconclusive results.

Let’s be clear about what this means:

• D&C (Dilation and Curettage): A surgical procedure where the cervix is dilated and tissue is scraped from the uterine lining for examination—this would have diagnosed Patricia’s cancer
• Hysterectomy: Surgical removal of the uterus—this would have been both diagnostic and potentially curative if the cancer was still early-stage

The defendant knew what needed to happen. She admitted under oath that both procedures should have been offered to Patricia to rule out cancer.

But they never were.

The Devastating Phone Call: What the Nurse Admitted Under Oath

The LPN Who Delivered the “Negative” News

A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) employed by the medical practice was assigned the task of calling Patricia to relay her test results on November 29, 2021. Her deposition would prove just as damaging to the defense as the physician’s—revealing not just one nurse’s error, but a systemic failure in how the practice handled potentially life-threatening test results.

The LPN’s Training and Qualifications

The Nurse’s Admission Under Oath: She testified that her primary responsibilities as an LPN included “triage,” taking phone calls from patients, and relaying test results once they had been reviewed by a provider.

Critically, she admitted she was not qualified to independently interpret the results of:

• Pap smears
• Pelvic ultrasounds
• Endometrial biopsy pathology reports

Her training at the medical practice was primarily verbal, provided by other staff members on office-specific procedures rather than formal written policies. There were no written protocols or checklists to ensure critical information was communicated to patients.

The Office’s Unwritten “Protocol” for Concerning Results

The Nurse’s Testimony Revealed a Critical Pattern: She testified that for the majority of providers in the practice, the standard practice for a concerning test result was to have the nurse instruct the patient to come into the office so the doctor could review the results in person.

The devastating inference: If a provider did not instruct the nurse to bring the patient in for an in-person consultation, it typically indicated the results were not concerning.

The defendant physician never instructed the nurse to bring Patricia in for an in-person discussion. This sent a clear message: these results were not worrying, despite the fact that cancer had not been ruled out.

The November 29, 2021 Phone Call: A Word-by-Word Breakdown

The nurse had a single phone call with Patricia on November 29, 2021, to discuss the results. What she said—and what she failed to say—sealed Patricia’s fate.

What the Nurse Told Patricia:

1. About the biopsy: There was “no tissue found” within the biopsy and the doctor was waiting for ultrasound results
2. About the Pap smear: The Pap smear screening was “negative for cancer”
3. About the hysterectomy: She offered a hysterectomy, but only in the context of treating benign fibroids

What the Nurse NEVER Told Patricia:

The Nurse’s Admissions Under Oath:

1. She did not offer a D&C to Patricia – even though the physician’s electronic notes mentioned that a D&C should be considered
2. She did not explain that the hysterectomy was being recommended to rule out cancer – she explicitly confirmed she did not say anything about the hysterectomy being a treatment for potential cancer
3. She said nothing about the possibility that Patricia might actually have endometrial cancer – despite the fact that cancer had not been ruled out
4. She never explained that the biopsy and ultrasound were inconclusive – Patricia was left with the impression that her test results were reassuring

Why Patricia Declined the Hysterectomy

Based on the nurse’s phone call, Patricia understood:

• Her Pap smear was “negative for cancer”
• The biopsy showed “no tissue” (She was not told this meant the test failed)
• She had benign fibroids
• A hysterectomy was being offered to treat the fibroids (not to rule out cancer)
• Cancer had been ruled out (Completely false)

Given this understanding, Patricia made the entirely reasonable decision to decline major surgery for simple benign fibroids. She had no idea her life was hanging in the balance. She had no idea that “no tissue found” meant the cancer test had failed, not that she was cancer-free.

She had no idea because no one told her.

The Admission of Systemic Failure

The Nurse Acknowledges the Miscommunication

When confronted during her deposition with the physician’s testimony that failing to offer both a D&C and a hysterectomy (with proper explanation) fell below the standard of care, the nurse was forced to confront reality.

The Nurse’s Admission Under Oath: She acknowledged that the situation “could be interpreted as a miscommunication”.

Let’s be clear: It wasn’t just “a miscommunication”—it was a catastrophic failure to communicate potentially life-saving information to a patient at serious risk of cancer.

No Criticism of Patricia

The Nurse’s Admission Under Oath: When asked about Patricia’s behavior as a patient, the nurse testified she had no criticisms of Patricia as a patient—Patricia answered the phone, listened to the information provided, and was cooperative and compliant.

This testimony obliterates any defense argument that Patricia was somehow at fault for the delay. Patricia did everything she was supposed to do. The failure was entirely on the medical office’s side.

The Systemic Failures That Destroyed Patricia’s Chance at Survival

This wasn’t just one doctor making a mistake or one nurse miscommunicating. This case exposed multiple systemic failures in how the medical practice handled potentially life-threatening test results:

Failure #1: No Written Policies or Protocols

The Problem: The nurse testified that her training was “primarily verbal” with no formal written policies for communicating test results to patients.

The Consequence: Without clear written protocols, there was no standardized way to ensure that critical information (like “cancer has not been ruled out”) was communicated to patients.

Failure #2: Unqualified Staff Making Critical Communications

The Problem: An LPN who admitted she was not qualified to interpret pathology, biopsy, or ultrasound results was tasked with communicating those results to a patient at high risk of cancer.

The Consequence: The nurse didn’t understand the significance of “no viable endometrial tissue seen”—that it meant the test failed, not that it was negative. She communicated false reassurance to Patricia.

Failure #3: No Physician-to-Patient Communication for Life-Threatening Results

The Problem: The defendant physician never spoke directly to Patricia about the inconclusive test results or the serious risk of cancer. She delegated this critical communication to nursing staff.

The Consequence: The nuance and urgency of the situation was lost in translation. The nurse didn’t understand this was a potentially life-threatening situation requiring immediate further testing.

Failure #4: The “Unwritten Protocol” That Misled Staff

The Problem: The practice’s unwritten “protocol” was that if a doctor didn’t ask the nurse to bring a patient in for an in-person visit, it meant the results weren’t concerning.

The Consequence: When the physician didn’t instruct the nurse to bring Patricia in, the nurse interpreted this to mean everything was fine—even though cancer had not been ruled out.

Failure #5: No Verification That Critical Information Was Communicated

The Problem: There was no system to verify that the nurse had actually communicated the doctor’s recommendations (like the D&C) to the patient.

The Consequence: The physician’s note mentioned a D&C, but the nurse never offered it to Patricia. There was no follow-up to ensure this critical diagnostic step was communicated.

The Devastating Consequences: What Eight Months Cost Patricia

November 2021: The Missed Opportunity

Expert medical testimony in this case indicates that in November 2021, Patricia’s cancer was almost certainly Stage I endometrial cancer—confined to the uterus, highly treatable, and potentially curable with surgery alone.

At Stage I:

• 5-year survival rate: Over 95%
• Treatment: Typically a total hysterectomy with removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes
• Prognosis: Excellent, with most patients living normal lifespans after treatment

But Patricia didn’t receive that diagnosis in November 2021. She was told by the nurse that her tests were “negative.”

July 2022: The Horrifying Truth

When Patricia finally sought a second opinion in July 2022—eight months after the defendants failed to ensure proper follow-up—another physician performed a D&C and discovered the devastating truth:

Patricia had Stage III endometrial cancer.

What had changed in those eight months?

• Tumor size: The cancer had grown to 7.2 centimeters
• Depth of invasion: The tumor had invaded 95% of the thickness of her uterine wall
• Lymph node involvement: The cancer had metastasized to her pelvic lymph nodes
• Stage: Stage III endometrial cancer
• Prognosis: 5-year survival rate of approximately 50-70%—compared to over 95% for Stage I

Patricia underwent emergency treatment, including:

• Robotic-assisted total hysterectomy with removal of ovaries, fallopian tubes, and affected lymph nodes
• Multiple rounds of aggressive chemotherapy
• Radiation therapy

But the damage was done. As of this writing, Patricia’s cancer has recurred, and her medical team has informed her that while the disease is treatable, it is likely no longer curable.

Understanding “Increased Risk of Harm” in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law

Patricia’s case is a textbook example of what Pennsylvania courts recognize as “increased risk of harm”—the established legal standard for medical causation in delayed diagnosis cases.

How Increased Risk of Harm Works

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff in a delayed diagnosis case must prove that the defendant’s negligence increased the risk of harm to the patient. This doesn’t require proof of what would have definitely happened with timely diagnosis—it requires proof that the delay made things worse and increased the patient’s risk of a poor outcome.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held: A plaintiff need not prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that earlier diagnosis would have prevented the harm. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the delay in diagnosis increased the risk that the patient would suffer a worse outcome.

Applying Increased Risk of Harm to Patricia’s Case

In Patricia’s case, our medical experts testified that:

1. November 2021 (Time of Negligence): Patricia almost certainly had Stage I endometrial cancer
   • Stage I survival rate: 95%+
   • Standard treatment: Surgery alone
   • Prognosis: Excellent
2. July 2022 (After Eight-Month Delay): Patricia was diagnosed with Stage III endometrial cancer
   • Stage III survival rate: 50-70%
   • Treatment required: Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation
   • Prognosis: Significantly worse, with likely recurrence
3. The Increased Risk: The eight-month delay caused by the defendants’ failure to ensure proper follow-up increased Patricia’s risk of harm by:
   • Allowing cancer progression from Stage I to Stage III
   • Reducing her survival probability by approximately 25-45 percentage points
   • Necessitating more aggressive, toxic treatment
   • Dramatically reducing her life expectancy
   • Leading to cancer recurrence

This is precisely what Pennsylvania law requires us to prove—not that earlier treatment would have definitely cured Patricia, but that the delay increased her risk of the devastating outcome she now faces.

Why This Standard Matters

The “increased risk of harm” standard recognizes a fundamental reality: cancer is unpredictable, and no one can say with 100% certainty what would have happened with earlier diagnosis. But what we can say with medical certainty is that:

• Earlier detection gives patients better odds
• Every stage of cancer progression worsens survival rates
• Delays in diagnosis increase the risk of metastasis and death

Pennsylvania law holds doctors accountable when their negligence increases these risks, even if we cannot prove with absolute certainty that earlier treatment would have resulted in a cure.

In Patricia’s case, the evidence was overwhelming: The defendants’ failures increased her risk of harm from a 5% chance of death (Stage I) to a 30-50% chance of death (Stage III). That dramatic increase in risk is precisely what Pennsylvania law was designed to compensate.

The Legal Fight: How Lupetin & Unatin Secured Justice

When Patricia and Robert realized that her late-stage cancer diagnosis was the direct result of a preventable medical failure, they contacted Lupetin & Unatin, LLC. Our firm immediately launched a comprehensive investigation into every aspect of the systemic breakdown that occurred.

Our Multi-Pronged Strategy

World-Class Medical Experts

We retained some of the most respected voices in gynecology and oncology to review Patricia’s case, including:

• The President of the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization
• A Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Harvard Medical School
• A board-certified gynecologic oncologist with decades of experience in endometrial cancer diagnosis and treatment

These experts reviewed every page of Patricia’s medical records and concluded: The failure to ensure proper follow-up on inconclusive tests and properly communicate the risk of cancer to the patient was a direct and inexcusable breach of the medical standard of care that increased Patricia’s risk of harm.

Devastating Depositions: Getting Both Defendants on the Record

The depositions of the defendant physician and nurse were the turning points in this case. Through careful, methodical questioning, we secured admission after admission that destroyed the defense:

Critical Admissions from the Physician:

1. Post-menopausal bleeding requires exclusion of endometrial cancer
2. Patricia had multiple documented risk factors for endometrial cancer
3. The endometrial biopsy and ultrasound provided no useful diagnostic information to rule out cancer
4. As of November 29, 2021, she had failed to rule out endometrial cancer in Patricia
5. The standard of care required offering Patricia both a D&C and a hysterectomy
6. She never spoke directly to Patricia about the test results
7. If the nurse failed to offer both procedures, it was “a miscommunication” that fell below the standard of care
8. Patricia was a compliant patient

Critical Admissions from the Nurse:

1. She was not qualified to independently interpret biopsy, ultrasound, or pathology results
2. Her training was primarily verbal with no formal written policies
3. She told Patricia the Pap smear was “negative for cancer”
4. She never offered Patricia a D&C
5. She never explained that the hysterectomy was being recommended to rule out cancer
6. She said nothing to Patricia about the possibility of endometrial cancer
7. She acknowledged the situation “could be interpreted as a miscommunication”
8. She had no criticisms of Patricia as a patient

When both the doctor and the nurse admit that the standard of care wasn’t met and that critical information wasn’t communicated to the patient, there’s virtually no viable defense left.

Comprehensive Liability Theory

We filed claims against:

• The physician for medical negligence and breach of the standard of care
• The nurse for negligent communication and failure to convey critical medical information
• The medical practice for:
  • Corporate negligence in failing to implement adequate policies and procedures
  • Inadequate training of nursing staff
  • Failure to supervise staff communications with patients
  • Vicarious liability for the actions of its employees
• The employing hospital system for vicarious liability

Our theory was comprehensive: This was a systemic failure that revealed no written policies for communicating potentially life-threatening test results, no requirement for physician-to-patient communication on inconclusive cancer screenings, no verification system to ensure critical recommendations were actually conveyed to patients, inadequate training of nursing staff, and dangerous informal “protocols” that led to miscommunication.

Proving Increased Risk of Harm

Our medical experts provided detailed testimony establishing that the eight-month delay:

• Allowed Patricia’s cancer to progress from likely Stage I to confirmed Stage III
• Increased her risk of death from approximately 5% to 30-50%
• Reduced her survival probability by 25-45 percentage points
• Necessitated more aggressive, toxic treatment with worse side effects
• Led to cancer recurrence that has rendered her cancer likely incurable

This evidence more than satisfied Pennsylvania’s “increased risk of harm” standard for medical causation in delayed diagnosis cases.

The Outcome: Justice for Patricia and Robert

Through our aggressive litigation strategy and the devastating deposition admissions from both defendants, we secured a substantial seven-figure settlement for Patricia and Robert that provides:

• Financial security to afford the best possible ongoing cancer treatment, including experimental therapies and clinical trials
• Comprehensive compensation for Patricia’s pain, suffering, and dramatically reduced life expectancy
• Loss of consortium damages for Robert’s loss of his wife’s companionship and support
• Full accountability from the defendants for their failures
• Systemic change: As part of the settlement, the medical practice agreed to implement new policies including:
  • Written protocols for communicating all test results, especially inconclusive or abnormal results related to cancer screening
  • Mandatory direct physician-to-patient communication for all cases where cancer has not been definitively ruled out
  • Documented verification that patients understand when follow-up testing is required and what the risks are if they decline
  • Specific training for nursing staff on the difference between “negative” results, “inconclusive” results, and failed diagnostic tests
  • Elimination of informal “signal systems” and replacement with clear, explicit written instructions for patient communications

While no amount of money can restore Patricia to the 95%+ survival rate she would have had with a timely diagnosis, this settlement ensures that she and Robert will have the resources they need to fight this disease with every weapon available in modern medicine.

More importantly, our litigation forced the defendants to confront their systemic failures and implement changes that will protect future patients.

Red Flags: When to Suspect Delayed Cancer Diagnosis

If you or a loved one experienced any of the following, you may have a medical malpractice claim for delayed cancer diagnosis:

Common Red Flags for Delayed Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis:

• You had post-menopausal bleeding but were told it was “just” fibroids, hormone changes, or age-related
• You had a biopsy that came back “insufficient,” “inadequate,” or “no viable tissue” but were told your results were “negative”
• Nursing staff communicated your test results instead of your doctor speaking to you directly about serious findings
• You were told your Pap smear was negative but were never told whether endometrial cancer was ruled out (these are different tests)
• Your doctor failed to offer further testing (D&C or hysteroscopy) after inconclusive results
• You were offered a hysterectomy for “fibroids” but were never told it was also to rule out cancer
• You were told you had “benign” conditions but were never explicitly told that cancer was ruled out
• You were diagnosed with late-stage cancer (Stage III or IV) after earlier symptoms were dismissed or incompletely evaluated
• You experienced a significant delay in diagnosis (even 3-6 months can be critical) despite presenting with classic warning signs
• Test results mentioned in medical records were never actually communicated to you

The “No Viable Tissue” Red Flag

This is critical: If you had an endometrial biopsy that came back with “no viable endometrial tissue,” “insufficient tissue,” or “inadequate sample,” this is NOT a negative result.

This means:

• ✗ NOT that you’re cancer-free
• ✗ NOT that the test was negative
• ✓ The test FAILED to obtain the tissue needed for diagnosis
• ✓ You NEED further testing (D&C or hysteroscopy)
• ✓ Cancer has NOT been ruled out

If you were told this result was “negative” or were not offered follow-up testing, you may have been the victim of the same type of miscommunication that harmed Patricia.

Other Gynecologic Cancers Frequently Delayed:

• Ovarian cancer: Persistent bloating, pelvic pain, or changes in bowel habits dismissed as IBS, gas, or menopause
• Cervical cancer: Abnormal Pap smears or HPV tests not followed up appropriately; biopsy recommendations ignored
• Breast cancer: Abnormal mammograms, ultrasounds, or palpable lumps not adequately investigated or biopsied in a timely manner
• Vulvar cancer: Persistent itching, sores, or skin changes dismissed as yeast infections or dermatitis

If any of these scenarios sound familiar, contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney immediately.

Why Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Delayed Cancer Diagnosis Are So Complex

Delayed cancer diagnosis cases are among the most challenging areas of medical malpractice law. Here’s why you need experienced attorneys like Lupetin & Unatin who have proven success in these cases:

Medical and Legal Complexity

These cases require deep understanding of:

• Cancer staging and progression: How fast different cancers grow and spread
• Diagnostic testing protocols and limitations: What each test can and cannot tell you
• Standard of care in cancer screening and follow-up: What a reasonably prudent physician should do
• Medical causation: Proving that the delay increased the patient’s risk of harm under Pennsylvania law
• Communication standards: When must a physician personally communicate results vs. when can it be delegated

Expert Witness Requirements

Pennsylvania law requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to present expert testimony to establish what the standard of care required, how the defendant deviated from that standard, and how the deviation increased the patient’s risk of harm.

Finding credible, qualified experts is extraordinarily difficult and expensive. We have spent years building relationships with the nation’s top medical experts across every specialty. In Patricia’s case, we retained experts from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital—institutions whose names carry enormous weight with juries.

Defendants’ Enormous Resources

When you sue a hospital system or large medical practice group, you’re up against teams of experienced defense attorneys, virtually unlimited financial resources, insurance companies whose business model depends on paying as little as possible, and medical professionals who close ranks to protect each other.

Defense attorneys use delay as a weapon. We have the resources to match them dollar-for-dollar, and we never back down.

Securing Critical Admissions

This is where having experienced deposition attorneys makes all the difference. When the defendant doctor admits under oath that the standard of care was not met, and when the nurse admits she never communicated critical information about cancer risk, it’s nearly impossible for the defense to win at trial.

Our attorneys know exactly which questions will secure the admissions needed to prove negligence.

Statute of Limitations Pressure

In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is generally two years from the date of discovery of the injury. This creates enormous pressure to quickly investigate the case, obtain and review all medical records, consult with medical experts, file a Certificate of Merit (required in Pennsylvania), and file the lawsuit before the deadline expires.

Once the statute of limitations expires, your case is gone forever, no matter how strong your claim is.

What Makes Lupetin & Unatin Different?

We Have the Financial Resources

Medical malpractice cases require significant upfront financial investment that most law firms simply cannot afford:

• Expert witness fees: $15,000-$50,000+ per expert for record review, written reports, depositions, and trial testimony
• Multiple experts required: Typically you need at least 2-3 experts (standard of care expert, causation expert, damages expert)
• Medical record acquisition and organization: $5,000-$15,000
• Deposition costs: $2,000-$5,000 per deposition; cases often involve 10+ depositions
• Medical illustrations and demonstrative evidence: $10,000-$30,000
• Life care planners and economists: $15,000-$25,000
• Trial preparation and presentation technology: $20,000-$50,000

Total pre-trial litigation costs typically range from $50,000-$150,000. If the attorney doesn’t recover compensation for the client, the attorney eats these costs entirely.

We can, and we do. Our firm has recovered millions of dollars in medical malpractice verdicts and settlements, giving us the financial foundation to invest heavily in every case we take on.

We Have the Medical and Legal Expertise

Partners Brendan Lupetin and Greg Unatin have:

• Recovered multiple seven-figure verdicts and settlements for clients in medical malpractice cases involving cancer misdiagnosis, surgical errors, birth injuries, and wrongful death
• Tried cases to verdict in Pennsylvania courts, demonstrating to insurance companies that we’re willing and able to take cases all the way to trial
• Built relationships with the nation’s top medical experts across every specialty
• Published articles on medical malpractice law and trial strategy in legal journals
• Lectured other attorneys on advanced medical malpractice litigation techniques
• Mastered the art of the deposition, knowing exactly which questions will secure the admissions needed to prove negligence

We don’t just understand the law—we understand the medicine. When we review your medical records, we know what to look for. When we depose defendants, we know which questions will secure the admissions we need. When we present your case to a jury, we can explain complex medical concepts in ways that ordinary people understand.

We Have the Trial Experience and Reputation

Insurance companies settle cases based on one primary factor: fear of trial.

When insurance companies know they’re facing attorneys who have substantial trial experience, have secured large verdicts for past clients, have the financial resources to litigate for years, and prepare every case as if it’s going to trial, they become much more motivated to offer fair settlements.

Our track record speaks for itself. We’ve secured justice for hundreds of clients across Pennsylvania, and insurance companies know that when they see Lupetin & Unatin on the other side, they’re in for a real fight.

We Genuinely Care About Our Clients

Patricia and Robert weren’t just a case number to us. We got to know them, understood their pain, and fought for them as if they were members of our own family.

We’re with you every step of the way. We return phone calls promptly. We explain things in plain English. We keep you informed about every development in your case. We prepare you thoroughly for depositions and trial. And we fight with everything we have to secure the justice and compensation you deserve.

Frequently Asked Questions About Delayed Cancer Diagnosis Cases

How do I know if I have a valid medical malpractice case?

If you were diagnosed with late-stage cancer after your symptoms were dismissed, test results were not properly followed up, or you were given false reassurance, you may have a claim. The key questions are:

1. Did you present to a doctor with symptoms that should have raised suspicion of cancer?
2. Did the doctor order appropriate diagnostic tests? If not, that may be negligence.
3. If tests were abnormal or inconclusive, did the doctor follow up appropriately?
4. Were you given accurate information about your test results?
5. Who communicated your results—the doctor or nursing staff?
6. Were you told about the significance of terms like “insufficient tissue” or “no viable tissue”?
7. Was there a significant delay between when cancer should have been diagnosed and when it was actually diagnosed?
8. Did that delay increase your risk of harm—worse cancer stage, worse prognosis, or reduced survival chances?

If you can answer “yes” to these questions, contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney immediately.

What is “increased risk of harm” and how does it apply to my case?

Under Pennsylvania law, you don’t have to prove that earlier diagnosis would have definitely prevented your harm. You must show that the delay in diagnosis increased the risk that you would suffer a worse outcome.

For example, if you had cancer that was likely Stage I when you first saw the doctor (95% survival rate) but was Stage III by the time it was finally diagnosed (50-70% survival rate), the delay increased your risk of death by 25-45 percentage points. That’s exactly what Pennsylvania law requires you to prove.

How long do I have to file a medical malpractice claim in Pennsylvania?

In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is generally two years from the date you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the malpractice.

However, there are important exceptions and complications. Do not try to figure this out yourself. Contact an attorney immediately—even if you’re not sure whether you’re within the deadline. Once the statute of limitations expires, your case is gone forever.

What if my doctor says the nurse “miscommunicated” but it wasn’t the doctor’s fault?

This is not a valid defense. Under Pennsylvania law, doctors and medical practices are legally responsible for the actions of their employees, including nurses. If the nurse was acting within the scope of her employment, the employer is liable for her negligence.

Additionally, certain test results—especially inconclusive results where cancer has not been ruled out—require direct physician-to-patient communication. The physician cannot delegate this responsibility to nursing staff and then claim it’s not her fault when the communication fails.

Will I have to go to court and testify at trial?

Most medical malpractice cases (approximately 90-95%) settle before trial. However, you should be prepared for the possibility of trial.

Having attorneys who are willing and prepared to try your case is actually the best way to secure a favorable settlement. When insurance companies know they’re facing attorneys with substantial trial experience who have secured devastating admissions in depositions, they become much more motivated to offer fair compensation.

How long will my case take?

Medical malpractice cases typically take 2-4 years from filing to resolution, though some complex cases can take longer. The process includes pre-litigation investigation (3-6 months), pleading phase (1-2 months), discovery and depositions (12-18 months), expert preparation (6-12 months), and trial or settlement negotiations.

We understand this is a long process, but thoroughness is essential to achieving the best possible result.

What if I can’t afford an attorney?

You don’t pay anything unless we win your case. Lupetin & Unatin handles all medical malpractice cases on a contingency fee basis, which means:

• No upfront costs or retainer fees
• No hourly billing
• We advance all litigation expenses
• We only get paid if we recover compensation for you
• Our fee is a percentage of the recovery

If we don’t recover compensation for you, you owe us nothing.

What if the doctor says my cancer was just “aggressive” and not their fault?

This is a common defense tactic. In Patricia’s case, we demolished this argument:

1. Cancer staging is directly tied to survival rates: Stage I = 95%+ survival, Stage III = 50-70% survival. This isn’t speculation—it’s medical fact.
2. The defendants’ own admissions proved causation: They admitted failing to rule out cancer and failing to ensure proper follow-up.
3. Published medical literature supports increased risk of harm: Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that earlier detection of endometrial cancer leads to better outcomes.

Don’t let defense attorneys gaslight you into thinking the delay “didn’t matter.” Every month matters when you’re dealing with cancer.

Take Action: Don’t Let Medical Silence Steal Your Future

If you or a loved one in Armstrong County, Butler County, Indiana County, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Western Pennsylvania, or anywhere in the Commonwealth has suffered due to:

• Delayed endometrial cancer diagnosis
• Post-menopausal bleeding that was dismissed or incompletely evaluated
• Inconclusive biopsy or ultrasound results that were characterized as “negative”
• Being told “no tissue found” or “insufficient tissue” without explanation
• Nursing staff communicating test results instead of your doctor
• Failure to offer D&C or hysteroscopy after inconclusive tests
• Communication failures between doctors, nurses, and patients about cancer risk
• Any delayed cancer diagnosis (ovarian, cervical, breast, lung, colon, prostate, melanoma, etc.)

You are not alone, and you have legal rights.

At Lupetin & Unatin, LLC, we specialize in complex medical malpractice cases involving cancer misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis. We have:

• The medical expertise to understand your case inside and out
• The financial resources to hire the nation’s top experts and litigate for as long as it takes
• The deposition skills to secure devastating admissions from defendants
• The trial experience to take on the largest healthcare systems and win
• The track record of seven-figure verdicts and settlements for our clients

Don’t let the statute of limitations run out. Don’t let the healthcare system silence you twice.

Contact Us Today for a Free, Confidential Consultation

Call us at 412-281-4100 or visit pamedmal.com to schedule your free case evaluation.

During your consultation, we will:

• Listen to your story with empathy and understanding
• Review your medical records at no cost to you
• Explain your legal options clearly and honestly
• Answer all your questions about the legal process
• Give you an honest assessment of whether you have a viable claim
• Explain our contingency fee arrangement—no fees unless we win

There is no obligation and no cost for the consultation. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Patricia and Robert trusted us to fight for them when the medical system failed them. Through devastating deposition testimony, we proved the negligence and secured a seven-figure settlement that provides them with financial security and forces systemic change to protect future patients.

Hundreds of other families across Pennsylvania have trusted us with their most important cases.

Now it’s your turn. Let us fight for you.