Free Consultation
(610) 667-7511
Free Consultation
(610) 667-7511
A missed pulmonary embolism diagnosis may raise medical malpractice concerns when symptoms or known clotting risks should have prompted additional testing, reassessment, or a higher level of care. A delayed diagnosis alone does not establish negligence. The key questions are whether the provider acted reasonably under the circumstances and whether an avoidable delay caused additional harm.
A pulmonary embolism can be difficult to recognize because symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness, or fainting can have many possible causes. That uncertainty does not mean every patient requires the same testing. It does mean providers may need to consider the patient’s symptoms together with medical history, vital signs, recent surgery or immobility, and other documented risk factors.
A pulmonary embolism generally involves a blood clot that travels to the lungs. Because symptoms can overlap with anxiety, heart problems, respiratory conditions, or other illnesses, the diagnosis may not be obvious during an initial visit.
From a malpractice perspective, the issue is whether the patient’s symptoms, history, and risk factors should reasonably have led to further evaluation.
No single symptom proves that a patient has a pulmonary embolism. Concern may increase when symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, fainting, or leg swelling appear alongside clotting risk factors.
Sudden, unexplained, or worsening shortness of breath may be significant, particularly when it occurs at rest or does not improve as expected. Chest pain may also warrant careful evaluation depending on the patient’s history, examination, and other findings.
A later legal review may consider whether the provider evaluated potentially serious causes, checked relevant vital signs, and responded appropriately when symptoms persisted or worsened.
Fainting, near-fainting, dizziness, confusion, or a sudden decline may call for reassessment. Medical records can help show whether providers repeated vital signs, reconsidered the diagnosis, ordered additional testing, or escalated care.
New leg swelling or pain may be significant when it occurs with shortness of breath, chest symptoms, or other concerning findings. A legal review may consider whether the provider recognized the possible connection between those symptoms and clotting risk.
Recent surgery, hospitalization, or prolonged immobility can be relevant to a provider’s assessment of clotting risk. A prior history of blood clots or other documented risk factors may also matter.
When concerning symptoms develop in these circumstances, a legal review may examine whether the provider should have tested, monitored, or escalated care sooner.
This is often the central issue in a missed pulmonary embolism malpractice case. The question is not whether every patient with chest pain or shortness of breath should receive the same test. It is whether a reasonably careful provider would have taken additional steps based on the information available at the time.
Depending on the circumstances, concerns may involve:
Continuing to rely on an initial diagnosis after the clinical picture has changed can become important in determining whether the standard of care was met.
No. A missed pulmonary embolism does not automatically mean that medical malpractice occurred. Some cases can be difficult to diagnose even when providers act reasonably.
A malpractice claim generally depends on whether the provider failed to meet the applicable standard of care and whether that failure caused additional harm.
A review may focus on the symptoms and risk factors documented in the chart, the tests that were ordered, changes in the patient’s condition, and how providers responded to those changes.
A poor outcome by itself is not enough. The evidence must connect a departure from appropriate care to additional injury caused by the delay.
These cases often depend on the timeline. Relevant evidence may include:
Reviewing these records can help determine whether warning signs were recognized and whether care should have been escalated sooner.
If symptoms or clotting risks were overlooked, a review of the medical records may help determine whether testing or treatment should have happened sooner.
Lowenthal & Abrams, P.C. has represented injured clients since 1975 and serves Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. Our team includes 17 attorneys, a medical doctor, and a nurse who assist with complex medical record reviews.
Call Lowenthal & Abrams at (610) 667-7511 for a free consultation. There is no upfront cost, and there is no fee unless the client is compensated.
LOWENTHAL AND ABRAMS, P.C.
Contact us for a FREE consultation. No fee unless compensated.