Radiology Error & Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Pittsburgh
Free Case Evaluation
Fill out the form below to schedule a free evaluation.
Missed Diagnoses, Interpretation Failures, and AI-Related Imaging Errors
At Lupetin & Unatin, we’ve spent decades investigating the “invisible” errors made in diagnostic labs. We’ve handled, settled, or tried to verdict cases where radiologists missed tumors, bleeds, or fractures on clear scans. If a misread image delayed your life-saving treatment, Pennsylvania law may entitle you to compensation.
Do I Have a Medical Malpractice Case?
Radiology malpractice is rarely about a “blurry image.” It occurs when a radiologist fails to meet the Standard of Care—meaning they missed a finding that a reasonably competent radiologist would have identified under similar circumstances. A radiologist is often the first line of defense in identifying life-threatening conditions, yet their work happens behind the scenes, far from the patient’s bedside. When a radiologist misreads an MRI, overlooks a shadow on a CT scan, or fails to communicate an urgent finding, the “window of opportunity” for treatment can slam shut. Whether it was a missed cancer diagnosis or a failure to identify an internal bleed, Pennsylvania law provides a path for recovery.
Four Requirements for a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Duty of Care: An imaging center or hospital department accepted your referral and a radiologist was tasked with interpreting your scans.
- Breach of Standard: The radiologist “under-read” the image (missed a visible abnormality) or provided an incorrect interpretation of a clear finding.
- Causation (Increased Risk of Harm): We prove that the error directly led to a delay in treatment that worsened your prognosis or took away a chance at a cure.
- Damages: The error resulted in measurable harm, such as the spread of cancer, permanent organ damage, or wrongful death.
Diagnostic “Red Flags” Checklist
- The “Second Opinion” Revelation: You were told an initial scan was “clear,” but a later doctor or a different facility looked at the same original disc and immediately saw a problem.
- Inconsistent Reports: A preliminary “wet read” (fast initial look) in the ER showed an emergency, but the final official report by the radiologist somehow missed it.
- The Silent Finding: You discovered that a radiologist did note a suspicious finding in their report, but neither the radiologist nor your primary doctor ever notified you.
- AI vs. Human Conflict: In a modern 2026 clinical setting, an AI diagnostic tool flagged your scan as “high risk,” but the human radiologist overrode the alert without a detailed explanation, leading to a missed diagnosis.
Commonly Occurring Radiology Errors
Missed Cancerous Lesions (Under-Reading)
Failure to Diagnose Brain Bleeds & Strokes
Because “time is brain,” a missed bleed can lead to permanent paralysis, cognitive loss, or death within hours. Negligence often involves a radiologist rushing through a high volume of “STAT” scans and overlooking the subtle signs of a burgeoning stroke. We investigate the digital time-stamps of when the image was uploaded versus when it was read to determine if “volume-driven” hospital quotas led to the oversight.
Incorrect Interpretation of "Red Flag" Symptoms
For example, a radiologist might label a suspicious mass as a “benign cyst” or “old scar tissue” when it is actually an aggressive malignancy. Malpractice occurs when the radiologist fails to recommend follow-up imaging (like an MRI or PET scan) despite “equivocal” findings. Our firm is dedicated to helping families who were told “not to worry” by a diagnostic report, only to face a medical crisis later.
Communication Breakdowns & "The Gap"
Many radiology errors occur after the scan is read. If a radiologist identifies an urgent finding (like a pulmonary embolism or an aortic aneurysm) but fails to pick up the phone to alert the treating doctor—relying instead on a buried line in a 5-page report—they have breached the standard of care. In Pennsylvania, we hold both the radiologist and the hospital system accountable for these systemic communication failures.
Technical Errors & Improper Imaging Protocols
Malpractice arises when a facility uses an outdated machine, fails to use “contrast” when indicated, or improperly positions the patient, obscuring a fracture or a tumor. If a radiologist attempts to interpret a “sub-optimal” or blurry image rather than ordering a repeat scan, they are liable for any resulting misdiagnosis. We look at the technical “metadata” of your scans to see if the facility took shortcuts with your safety.
AI-Assisted Diagnostic Negligence
Pennsylvania Legal Rules & Deadlines
In Pennsylvania, you generally have two years from the date of the error to file a claim. However, radiology errors are the “classic” example of when the Discovery Rule applies. Since you cannot see what is inside your own body, the two-year clock may not start until a second doctor identifies the mistake on the original scan.
On February 18, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirmed that the expanded venue reforms are now permanent.
Filing in Pittsburgh: We are no longer limited to suing a radiologist in the county where the imaging center is located. If the parent company (like UPMC, AHN, or a national radiology chain) “regularly conducts business” in Pittsburgh, we can permanently file your case in Allegheny County. This is vital for accessing a jury pool that understands the high-tech nature of modern diagnostic medicine.
Pennsylvania’s MCARE Act ensures that funds are available for high-value radiology settlements. Radiologists are required to carry primary insurance, but the MCARE Fund provides an additional layer of mandatory “excess” coverage. This is especially important in “Delayed Cancer Diagnosis” cases, where damages for lost future earnings and lifetime medical care often exceed a doctor’s individual insurance limits.
Within 60 days of filing a radiology malpractice lawsuit, Pennsylvania law requires a Certificate of Merit. This is a formal statement confirming that a qualified, board-certified radiologist has reviewed your scans and believes the original interpretation fell below the standard of care. Our firm handles the complex process of securing these independent expert reviews to ensure your case is medically validated from the start.
Article
Radiology plays a pivotal role in modern healthcare, offering crucial insights into patients’ internal health through various imaging techniques. Radiology reports are the end products of this diagnostic process, containing detailed findings that guide physicians in formulating accurate diagnoses and treatment plans. However, when radiologists fail to interpret these reports promptly, the consequences can be dire for patients.
Article
When a radiologist sees something significant and fails to report it clearly, or when a physician orders an imaging study and never acts on the report, a patient can go months or years without a diagnosis that was medically achievable far earlier. This can be the difference between a treatable condition and a fatal one.
Article
A misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis becomes malpractice if the delay caused the patient’s condition to worsen significantly, resulting in a more difficult treatment, permanent injury, or a lower chance of survival. This is legally known as the “Loss of Chance” doctrine. If the delay turned a treatable Stage I condition into a terminal Stage IV crisis, the doctor is liable for the harm caused by that lost time.
Radiology Error Case Results
Frequently Asked Questions
We pursue Economic Damages (medical bills for the advanced treatment you now need, lost wages, and loss of future earning capacity) and Non-Economic Damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, and “Loss of Enjoyment of Life”). If the delay in diagnosis significantly shortened your life expectancy, we also pursue “Loss of Consortium” for your family.
Yes. A radiologist has a “Physician-Patient Relationship” with you the moment they agree to interpret your scans. They do not need to speak with you or be in the same room to be held liable for a breach of the Standard of Care. In the era of “teleradiology,” where your scans might be read by a doctor in another city, we use Pennsylvania’s venue rules to hold them accountable.
The size of the finding matters, but it isn’t the only factor. The question is: “Would a reasonable radiologist of similar training have seen it?” If the finding had “suspicious” characteristics—even if small—and the radiologist failed to flag it or recommend follow-up, it is likely malpractice. We use “Blind Review” experts to prove what should have been seen.
This is a “Communication Error” and often both are at fault. The radiologist has a duty to ensure “Critical Results” are communicated directly to the referring physician. The referring physician has a duty to review the report and notify the patient. In Pennsylvania, we often sue both parties and let the jury apportion the blame.
Automation bias occurs when a radiologist trusts an AI tool’s “Normal” rating so much that they stop looking for errors themselves. If an AI missed your tumor and the radiologist “rubber-stamped” the result without a proper human review, the radiologist (and potentially the hospital system) is liable for that negligence.
Potentially, but these cases are more difficult. To win, we must prove that the radiologist’s interpretation was so far outside the standard of care that no reasonable doctor would have suggested the biopsy. Generally, the law gives more leeway for “over-diagnosing” (being safe) than “under-diagnosing” (missing the problem).
If you had a “clear” scan in 2023, that turns out to have been misread and you were just diagnosed with advanced cancer in 2026, your two-year window to sue likely begins in 2026. This is because you had no way of knowing the 2023 scan was misread until the new diagnosis brought the error to light.
This is a serious issue called “Spoliation of Evidence.” If a hospital “loses” or deletes your original scans after a claim is threatened, Pennsylvania courts may issue a “special instruction” to the jury to assume the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the hospital. We use digital forensics to track down “lost” imaging data.