ReviewJournal.com - News - Jury gives family $2.5 = million award

SAVE=20 THIS 3DEmail=20

EMAIL=20 THIS 3DPrint=20

PRINT=20 THIS 3DPopular=20

MOST=20 POPULAR

RSS = FEEDS=20 3DRSS=20

POST=20 A COMMENT

Jan. 28, 2009
Copyright = =C2=A9 Las Vegas=20 Review-Journal

CORRECTION -- 01/30/09 -- A = story=20 Wednesday was mistaken about the District Court case thought = to be=20 the largest medical malpractice jury award since 2004. In = 2007, a=20 Clark County jury awarded $20.5 million to a woman whose = husband=20 died of lung cancer in a verdict against Emergency = Physicians=20 Medical Group.

Jury gives=20 family $2.5 million award

Malpractice verdict on doctor = thought to=20 be largest since '04

By=20 DAVID KIHARA
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Elisa Sanchez knew something was wrong.

In 2004, the 24-year-old mother found blood in her stool = and kept=20 having pain when she went to the bathroom. When she went to = local=20 doctor Steven Lampinen, she was repeatedly told that she was = merely=20 suffering from hemorrhoids.

Share & Save=20

=20

What = is=20 this?

Most Popular=20 Stories

Man=20 falls to death from 8th floor window at Circus Circus =

Young = mother's=20 body found in trash can in Las Vegas

NORM: = Comedian=20 lands one last Grammy

Clark = County=20 issues notices about work at CityCenter

NORM: = They're=20 calling it a day at 'La Cage'

NORM: = Singer=20 Brown reportedly in LV

NORM: = Actors=20 rehearse for their wedding

Obama = draws ire=20 over Vegas junket criticism

Gaming = revenues=20 suffer sharpest drop in state history

Gaming=20 revenues suffer sharpest drop in state history

NORM: = S.I.'s=20 sexy cover girl flying high =

=20

Seven months after she visited the doctor, Sanchez was = rushed to=20 University Medical Center's emergency room because of major = pain.=20 Shortly after that, she was diagnosed with colon and rectal = cancer.=20 She died in 2007 at the age of 27.

Last week, a Clark County District Court jury awarded her = family=20 $2.5 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The suit = contended=20 that Lampinen and Brian Bishop, a nurse at the family = practice, were=20 negligent and didn't examine her properly. It's thought to = be the=20 largest medical malpractice verdict in District Court since=20 2004.

The jury determined that Lampinen was mostly responsible = for the=20 negligence that contributed to Sanchez's death and that he = "fell=20 below the standard of care," according to the verdict.

If she'd been properly diagnosed when she first visited = Lampinen,=20 her chances of surviving the cancer would have been 97 = percent, said=20 Steven Karen, one of the family's attorneys. Her chances = dropped to=20 50 percent by the time she was diagnosed in December = 2004.

Karen said Sanchez likely would be alive today if doctors = had=20 diagnosed her cancer earlier. Before she died, Sanchez went = through=20 chemotherapy and major surgery, including the removal of her = uterus=20 and part of her lower intestines, said Clark Seegmiller, = another=20 attorney for the family.

Sanchez's husband and 5-year-old daughter live in New = Mexico.=20 Although they declined to comment, Karen said they didn't = sue solely=20 for money.

"It was never about money for them," he said. "It was = about=20 honoring the loss."

Lampinen did not return calls seeking comment and his = attorneys=20 weren't available. Lampinen continues to practice in = Nevada.

Nevada caps malpractice lawsuit awards at $350,000 for = pain and=20 suffering. In this case, the jury awarded at least $2 = million in=20 "economic losses," or future lost wages. Sanchez worked in = retail.=20

Sanchez went to Lampinen in April 2004, after she was = diagnosed=20 with colitis at a UMC Quick Care and told to follow up with = her=20 primary care physician. He diagnosed her as suffering from = diarrhea=20 and other bowel problems and prescribed a laxative, the = lawsuit=20 states. He didn't conduct a rectal exam or schedule a = follow-up=20 visit, the lawsuit alleges.

She next visited Lampinen's practice four months later=20 complaining of constipation, pain and difficulty sitting. At = that=20 time, Bishop examined her and believed she was suffering = from=20 internal hemorrhoids, according to an expert hired by = Lampinen's=20 attorneys. Bishop treated her with an enema.

Sanchez returned twice to Lampinen's office but was told = that she=20 was suffering from hemorrhoids, the lawsuit states. = Lampinen's=20 medical expert said the doctor referred her to a specialist. = Karen=20 disputes that.

In mid-November, Sanchez was in pain and went to UMC's = emergency=20 room. A colonoscopy performed a month later found a = cancerous tumor.=20 Although the tumor was removed, the cancer returned and = spread=20 throughout her body.

Contact reporter David Kihara at = dkihara@reviewjournal.com or=20 702-380-1039.

Leave Your=20 Comment	39=20 Reader Comments
Terms=20 & Conditions The following comments are = provided by=20 readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. = The=20 reviewjournal.com does not review comments before = publication=20 nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment = here you=20 agree to abide by the comment = policy. If you see a comment that violates the = policy,=20 please notify the web = editor.=20 Some comments may not display immediately due = to an=20 automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed = within 48=20 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than = once.=20
=20 Please enter your = name Name:=20 Please enter your = email Email:=20 Please enter a = comment COMMENTS = :=20 (word=20 count limit is 300) =20 You have reached the = maximum number=20 of words allowed Current Word Count: =20 Bri wrote on February 02, 2009 09:55 = AM: I didn't look at this for = a couple=20 days, I guess I missed out. UMC RN- You are = the=20 definition of a pompous idiot! It is each and every = Americans=20 duty to be on a jury if called. Only selfish people = would=20 shrug that responsibility. As far as the question of = their=20 status as American citizens, that had never crossed my = mind.=20 Their status as human beings is all that matters = regardless.=20 All nine of us are good people and you can only hope = that if=20 you are ever in this situation you will have a jury = like us.=20 To Elisa's mom- I can not tell you how sorry = for your=20 loss I am. As a mother myself I cannot even begin to = imagine=20 the pain that you suffered watching your daughter = struggle. I=20 know you will take care of your Grand Daughter and = teach her=20 to ignore idiots like UMC RN. To everyone = else- I=20 sincerely hope that if you are ever selected as a = jurror that=20 you will listen to the facts only and ignore the = possible=20 reactions you will get from people who only get a 3 = paragraph=20 view of what it took you weeks to decide. It is a = shame that=20 people like UMC RN are out roaming the world = freely.=20 silly doctor wrote on = February 01, 2009 11:29 = PM: I must assume that there = were in=20 fact unbiased doctors brought to the stand to testify = that the=20 Dr. in this case did not do everything properly. I = mean surely=20 they do not just let the jury deliberate without = hearing=20 testimony from other very reputable (I must assume) = Dr.'s who=20 are in fact very well versed medical personnel. = Dr.'s=20 are such premadonna's what a ridiculous suggestion. = Imagine=20 actually succeeding in getting an entire panel of = Dr.'s to sit=20 in on a trial and then on top of that having to prove = that=20 they are not biased. Not the way it works. And = to UMC=20 RN I hope the mother of this woman finds out who you = are.=20 Sounds like something very fishy going on over there. = How dare=20 you make such false accusations. You clearly have no = idea what=20 you are talking about and should go crawl back into = the hole=20 you came out of. To the mother I am very sorry = for your=20 loss. mom wrote on February 01, 2009 07:17 = PM: I am Elisa's mother and I = am angry=20 at the misinformation that has surfaced through this = comment=20 page about her and her family being in the country = illegally.=20 I don't know where this information came from; = however,if it=20 came from the UMC hospital or hospital staff, then UMC = has a=20 definite issue with breaching HIPPA regulations. My = daughter=20 was born in the United States and was a citizen. So to = you UMC=20 RN, you need to review your facilities' policies = regarding=20 patient confidentiality and HIPPA regulations and = think before=20 you speak out about other patients inappropriately. As = for=20 those of you who have made comments regarding the case = and the=20 verdict without being in the courtroom, I can only = pray that=20 you never are in the situation to have to watch your = child=20 suffer the severe pain and agony that accompanies the = type of=20 cancer my daughter had. I will not however, dishonor = my=20 daughter's memory by responding to any of the comments = as=20 everyone is entitled to their own opinions. My family = and I=20 did and will always appreciate each of the jurors who = gave of=20 their time to deliberate the information which was = provided=20 during the trial. Tazzysoze wrote on = February 01, 2009 06:54 = PM: My entire point to all = these=20 postings was that it is extremely difficult for = non-medical=20 personnel to determine if a medical error has = occurred.=20 Ideally, 12 unbiased physicians would be gathered to = judge=20 their peers. Physicians, and only physicians, truly = know what=20 the standard of care is, and how best to judge if = colleagues=20 have failed to meet that standard. I am not a = physician, but I=20 see how difficult it is for non-physicians to relate = to and=20 judge them. I am not passing judgment on the = jurors in=20 this trial, but it is unfair to expect them to = understand the=20 complexities of diagnosing and treating cancer. Even = the best=20 doctors struggle with this, as evidenced by the trial. = How can=20 a civilian understand when a doctor should suspect=20 malignancy? silly doctor wrote on = February 01, 2009 12:23 = PM: Help me understand one = thing. Dr.'s=20 in Nevada have been free of even having to worry about = being=20 negligent because juries just do not award these = people=20 anything. As soon as one case gets through everyone = "gets=20 their panties in a bunch." Tazzy sounds like a Dr. = trying to=20 straighten things up. Good luck buddy. I do = not know=20 anything about this case but I must assume that the = jury heard=20 all the evidence and made a proper verdict. I do not = believe=20 that the verdict was over the top. I mean you hear = about=20 juries awarding obscene amounts of money. You hear = about it in=20 the news and wonder how they came to that number. = Just=20 from living in this state, after living elsewhere, I = feel=20 proper medical care is truly lacking. Explain to me = how it is=20 that a person has a 1:00 Dr.'s appointment and does = not see=20 the Dr. until 3:00. Why do Dr.'s feel that their time = is more=20 valuable than others?? Well this is what happens when = you=20 overbook and do not get to give the necessary time and = attention to each and every patient. I think it comes = down to=20 Dr.'s being greedy. I say good for the family = of this=20 woman and hopefully this Dr., after this will manage = his=20 practice differently. I wonder after it is all said = and done,=20 if he would have done something differently. = luckyseven wrote on = January 31, 2009 08:04 = PM: I didn't say by them being = illegal=20 aliens that it affected the level or type of care they = would=20 receive by you. My question was this, do you believe = you=20 should not be subject to litigation or be held = accountable at=20 all if you were to cause harm or injury to that person = either=20 by something you did, or failed to do as part of your = job. If=20 you believe you should NOT be held accountable then = isn't it=20 unethical for you to be treating them? That's all I'm = saying.=20 If you tried sitting on a jury sometime you would know = there=20 are only certain things you're allowed to base your = decision=20 on. Personal beliefs about whether or not someone = belongs in=20 this country not being one of them. Please explain to = me how=20 you can believe the legal system was "abused" in this = case.=20 None of the jurors tried to get out of this with the = exception=20 of a no show on the first day of testimony. That juror = was=20 replaced voluntarily by a previously excused juror at = the=20 request of the judge. That definition was written and = quoted=20 by someone who has no respect for the judicial system. = May=20 they never have the need to plead a case to a jury of = their=20 peers. Just like voting, if your not willing to do it = then=20 don't complain about the outcome. UMC RN wrote on January 31, 2009 06:45 = PM: Wow, for someone who = started to cry=20 about others assuming things, you seem to be full of = them! Yes=20 the family was in the US illegally (this came out when = knowledge of the lawsuit circulated around the = hospital). I=E2=80=99m=20 sure it didn=E2=80=99t come up at trial because = something like might=20 have caused a thinking person to pause for a moment = and go=20 =E2=80=9CHmmmmm.=E2=80=9D That is simply something the = petitioning lawyer=20 would never allow. However that presumes there would = be a=20 thinking person on the jury=E2=80=A6 something that = obviously proved=20 not to be correct. Yes, I provide medical = treatment=20 for illegal aliens all the time at the hospital, and = no, a=20 person=E2=80=99s legal status does not affect the = level or type of=20 care they receive. However this was never the issue = (no matter=20 how much you would like to twist it into that). The = issue is=20 how can someone with no legal basis in this country = use and=20 abuse the legal system? We have seen the answer is = =E2=80=9Cwith the=20 help of Bri and luckyseven.=E2=80=9D = Definition of a jury: a=20 group of people too stupid to get out of it.=20 luckyseven wrote on = January 31, 2009 01:23 = PM: UMC RN If that is even = true it was=20 never brought up at trial. If you are an RN let me ask = you=20 this. Do you ever have to provide medical treatment = for=20 illegal aliens? By your reasoning if you cause injury = by doing=20 something or failing to do something to one of them I = guess=20 you're not responsible for any wrong doing. I suppose = because=20 they are "illegal" they are fair game to do with what = you=20 want. Is that it? If you really are an RN, you = shouldn't=20 be. UMC RN wrote on January 30, 2009 10:30 = PM: My favorite part of this = whole=20 thing: the family is in the US illegally. I guess I = just don=E2=80=99t=20 understand how illegal aliens can sue American doctors = in a US=20 court. Maybe Bri and luckyseven can explain how an = illegal=20 alien was going to legitimately earn two million = dollars=20 here. luckyseven wrote on = January 30, 2009 07:08 = PM: It was a challenging case. = It was=20 our duty to hear the entire case without forming any = opinions.=20 A task I beleive we all took seriously and did to the = best of=20 our ability. I don't know what relation you had to = this case.=20 You obviously know more about it than the RJ revealed = but less=20 than what the trial revealed. It seems as though you = may be=20 biassed. The jury was made of nine members who were = not=20 biassed. We have already heard the expert testimony on = both=20 sides. If you were there that would have been the time = to=20 refute the evidence. Not now. Tazzysoze wrote on = January 30, 2009 04:51 = PM: What was the basic exam = that he=20 could have done, besides the rectal exam and referral = that was=20 performed? A family practitioner would never do a = colonoscopy;=20 that is the specialist's area. He performed the = necessary exam=20 at the appropriate time. Regardless of the fact = that he=20 followed the standard care, this patient had a = carcinoid=20 tumor. This is an extremely rare cancer, that nowhere = near=20 approaches a "97%" survivability. It is, in fact, = almost=20 always fatal, regardless of when it is detected. The = patient=20 did not even present with typical carcinoid symptoms, = so how=20 would early detection be possible? It is only=20 reasonable to expect a physician to follow a standard = of care=20 and understand probability, which was appropriately = done in=20 this case. It is easy to see this case from the = position of the patient, but one must look at both = sides of=20 the story, as has been stated by others below. As a = physician,=20 would you see a young, healthy woman and immediately = suspect=20 cancer, regardless of the symptoms? If this was a more = 'common' presentation, then I am sure the physician = would have=20 had cancer at the top of his differential. However, is = it=20 common to suspect something much more malignant when = ninety=20 nine out of one hundred of these cases will, in fact, = have a=20 benign etiology? This case becomes much more=20 challenging when one examines the information from = both=20 perspectives. Trish wrote on January 30, 2009 01:02 = PM: To the jurors - Kudos to = you for=20 having the guts (and the smarts) to stand up for whats = right.=20 This was a tragedy that didn't have to occur. Thank = you for=20 clarifying the misconceptions in the article as well.=20 To those who think this is only about the = money - you=20 need to stop and consider what you would do if this = was your=20 wife, husband, child, mother or father. Maybe the = outcome of=20 this trial will stop a tragedy like this from = happening again.=20 Would you be so nasty minded if it was your loved ones = this=20 happened to? Think about it before you jump to = conclusions and=20 write a bunch of hateful things about people you don't = know. luckyseven wrote on = January 30, 2009 12:31 = PM: Thanks Bri, you too.=20 Bri wrote on January 30, 2009 10:15 = AM: Very well said = Lucky!!!=20 luckyseven wrote on = January 30, 2009 03:11 = AM: Tazzy, Dr Lampinen = had the=20 basic text(basic being Dr lampinens word) in his = office that=20 said cancer needed to be ruled out when patients are=20 experiencing the types of symptoms Elisa was. The = bottle of=20 magnesium citrate he gave to her said on the label "if = blood=20 is present consult a physician because it could be a = sign of a=20 serious condition." It wasn't about him diagnosing or = treating=20 the cancer. It was about him failing to investigate = her=20 symptoms by doing a basic exam that would help to rule = out a=20 serious condition. The evidence strongly suggested he = was less=20 than honest about who finally made the referral to a = GI.=20 Comparing his testimony with the patients chart proved = he was=20 less than honest when he said her chief complaint was = a cough=20 and not her bowel problems. Had he done = anything...examined=20 her, looked at the area she was having pain and = bleeding, it=20 may have alerted him enough to make a referral. At = stage one=20 she would have had a 97 percent chance of survival. = How can he=20 be "least" responsible for disease progression? It was = progressing for the seven months he and Bishop were = leading=20 her and themselves to beleive it was nothing more = serious than=20 a hemeroid. luckyseven wrote on = January 30, 2009 01:25 = AM: Disgusted, we entered the = jury room=20 with almost three weeks of expert testimony including = that of=20 forensic economists. We didn't just pull the number = from a hat=20 nor did we award everthing that was asked. The story = above=20 doesn't even come close to giving information we = obtained in=20 just the opening statements. Bri wrote on January 29, 2009 07:12 = PM: Tazzy, I would = agree=20 that I should go to someone who specialized in that = problem, I=20 would expect to be referred to a specialist just like = Elisa=20 should have been referred to a GI specialist. If this = had=20 happend in a timely manner we wouldn't be having this=20 conversation. Tazzysoze wrote on = January 29, 2009 06:20 = PM: Bri, I agree the = jury was=20 only asked to consider the current suit, and based on = the=20 lawyers' portrayal probably reached an inevitable=20 verdict. However, looking at the overall = situation, the=20 primary care physician, out of all the physicians = involved in=20 the case, was the least responsible for the disease=20 progression. It is unreasonable to pinpoint this on = one=20 doctor, whose responsibility was not to diagnose and = treat.=20 Just as a cardiologist would not be expected to catch = and=20 treat a brain disorder, a family practitioner is not = trained=20 to diagnose and treat cancer. They are only asked to = be=20 suspicious and refer to more qualified doctors, which = this=20 doctor did. Using your neck pain example, would = you=20 prefer a family practitioner to tentatively treat your = neck=20 pain and leave it at that, or to refer you to someone = who is=20 trained to treat your specific problem? Why is one = doctor held=20 responsible for a case that is out of his scope of = practice,=20 versus the specialists who are trained to catch and = treat the=20 cancer? I just find this case to be = suspiciously=20 monetarily driven when the least responsible doctor = with the=20 most lucrative insurance is targeted. Not about the money = wrote on=20 January 29, 2009 12:20 = PM:=20 If it is not about = the money,=20 then keep part of it for loss and donate the other = portion to=20 the Susan Komen Foundation. Judy wrote on January 29, 2009 11:42 = AM: Working in the medical = field, but=20 not being part of the jury, I can only base my = reaction on the=20 version the media presented to us. I believe that all = health=20 care professionals have a duty to go beyond the = typical 4=20 minute exam, and send people for tests. I agree that = many send=20 patients for "not really needed" testing, just to = cover=20 themselves. But for a doctor to be given obvious = complaints=20 and not follow up is inexcusable. I think the jury = (from what=20 I have read) was correct in their verdict and = award.=20 Bri wrote on January 29, 2009 11:24 = AM: I guess part of my = response was cut=20 off... We followed the law, we looked at all = facts and=20 made the proper decision. The Plantiff suggested = $5-$10=20 million. We did not have a limit. We had 5 places to = write in=20 $$ figures and it totaled $2.5 million. We did not = give $2=20 million for future economic loss. This article poorly=20 represented this case. Bri wrote on January 29, 2009 11:19 = AM: Tazzy, The jury = gave both=20 Brian Bishop and Dr Lampinen the benefit of the doubt = for the=20 first visit. We agreed that the first visit he = shouldn't have=20 sent her out for all tests. When Brian Bishop = diagnosed an=20 "internal hemorroid" and it didn't go away in a month = Dr.=20 Lampinen should have double checked the diagnosis. He = didn't,=20 which cost her the loss of chance that they were being = sued=20 for. The tumor was found in the same place that the = "internal=20 hemorroid" was diagnosed. Everyone knows that early = detection=20 of cancer is important. The text books refferenced in = the=20 trial stated that an internal hemorroid can not be = palpated=20 unless it is clotted. An expert testified that a = clotted=20 internal hemorroid is rare. Most people without = medical=20 knowledge depend on and trust their doctors. She was = only 24=20 years old and followed her doctors intruction. Dr. = Lampinen=20 was not the cause of her cancer however he did cause = harm by=20 taking away her chance at an early diagnosis. Dr. = Lampinen=20 NEVER even looked at the area that she was complaining = about.=20 If you have a sore neck wouldn't you expect the doctor = to look=20 at your neck? Why should this have been different? = The=20 oncologists, pathologists and gastroenterologists = where not=20 involved in this case, as a jury you are instructed to = follow=20 the letter of the law and only the evidence that you = are=20 presented with. On the stand when asked why he = wasn't=20 concerned about her rectal bleeding he testified that = since=20 bleeding wasn't her chief complaint and she didn't = seem=20 concerned about it that he wasn't concerned either.=20 I Tazzysoze wrote on = January 29, 2009 11:01 = AM: This entire case was an = unfortunate=20 event for the patient and her family. The patient = should have=20 moved quicker than she did to receive treatment, the=20 pathologists should have correctly diagnosed her the = first=20 time around, and the cancer specialist should have = treated and=20 operated earlier. The lawyers did not go after the=20 oncologists, pathologists, and gastroenterologists = (all of=20 whom share equal responsibility in this case) because = of the=20 minimal gains they would receive. To signal = out a=20 family practitioner, whose responsibility is not to = diagnose=20 cancer, is irrational and illogical. If a young, = fairly=20 healthy, post-partum female presents to an office for = the=20 first time complaining of abdominal pain, no family=20 practitioner with sound judgment would immediately = jump to a=20 diagnosis of cancer, let alone an extremely rare = cancer, as=20 was the case here. A family practitioner's duty is not = to make=20 and treat every diagnosis, but to serve as the = quarterback for=20 the patient's health care team. The doctor in question = here=20 should not have made the diagnosis, but plugged her = into the=20 system to see the right specialists. He properly = referred her=20 to the appropriate doctors. At that point, her care is = in=20 their hands. It is the specialists who failed to treat = her=20 properly, but were not held accountable. The = doctor in=20 this case should not have been held liable for a = condition out=20 of his scope of training. Why not go after the doctors = who=20 should have fixed her? Bri wrote on January 29, 2009 09:52 = AM: I made an error in my = post... I=20 meant to say " 5-10 million dollars that was suggested = by The=20 lawyers" Bri wrote on January 29, 2009 09:39 = AM: First of all, I am one of = the=20 jurors. This article was an awefull representation of = this=20 case! You are only getting the very small amount of=20 information that this writer gave. No where on here = does it=20 say that she was a short time away from being a = college=20 graduate, no where does it say that she passed 3 out = of 4 of=20 her tests to be a insurance producer. This article = doesn't go=20 into exactly how many visits she had or what she was = told each=20 time she went. The Jury was unanimous, the = deliberation was=20 very involved. We awared a fair ammount rather than = giving the=20 5-10 million dollars that was suggested by defense. = You=20 shouldn't judge the jury unless you have the entire = picture.=20 Bottom line, Elisa lost her chance to fight her cancer = and Dr=20 Lampinen should have done more. This was a case of a = doctor=20 looking mostly at her age instead of her symptoms. We = live in=20 Las Vegas but Drs should not take a gamble or your=20 life. Paul wrote on January 28, 2009 08:26 = PM: arrogance Main = Entry:=20 ar=C2=B7ro=C2=B7gance Pronunciation: = \=CB=88er-=C9=99-g=C9=99n(t)s, =CB=88a-r=C9=99-\=20 Function: noun Date: 14th century : an = attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing = manner or=20 in presumptuous claims or assumptions Concerned wrote on = January 28, 2009 07:26 = PM: This is a very tragic = incident.=20 Doctors are human too, though. As a health care = professional,=20 we diagnose on the history and presenting complaints. = Any=20 person can send their patients for a slew of tests to = rack up=20 thousands and thousands of dollars to get at a = diagnosis.=20 People have to take responsibility for their own = health as=20 well and communicate to the doctor. These lawsuits is = what=20 drives the cost of insurance!!!!!! To get 2.5mil for a = tragic=20 death. The doctor didn't cause the cancer, so how can = you sue=20 him for future wages? Maybe every patient that comes = in the=20 hospital needs to get an MRI, radiographs, blood = tests, fecal=20 tests, cultures, endoscopy, ultrasound, urine tests, = etc. That=20 would help? Please! Disgusted wrote on = January 28, 2009 04:06 = PM: $2 million in future lost = wages =E2=80=A6.=20 in retail?! Are they kidding?! Assuming a retirement = at 65,=20 they awarded over $52k year to a 20 year old working = in=20 retail. This is tragic, but that=E2=80=99s just = garbage. Come on jury,=20 use your brains! Read=20 All Comments

=20