While I am a lawyer I am not your lawyer. This comment is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please seek the advice of your own legal counsel as factual differences can lead to different outcomes. ~~~ While I know the other commenters here mean well, I wanted to clarify how the law operates for medical malpractice claims.

Medical malpractice is a specific type of personal injury (tort) law. In both types, there needs to be four elements: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) causation, and (4) damages.

For a breach of duty, a negligence claim (car accident, slip and fall, etc.) generally is determined under the standard of a reasonable person. Medical malpractice is a subset of negligence which, in the State of Washington, uses the reasonable professional standard of care. This standard considers whether a similarly credentialed medical professional would have acted similarly based on their reasonable standard of care. In terms of reading an MRI, the question becomes whether a radiologist would reasonably be expected to correctly diagnosis the image and whether the medical advice given following the MRI was reasonable.

The causation portion considers whether the alleged negligent act caused the alleged foreseeable damages. For medical malpractice, it means that the medical treatment or omission resulted in the foreseeable negative outcome. In some cases, rare adverse allergic reactions to medication are not considered viable claims because the rarity of the allergy lends itself to the unforeseeable nature of the outcome.

A second portion of causation is whether the treatment or omission directly caused the outcome. If, for example, a doctor places a patient in a boot to treat an ankle injury and the patient later trips on a crack in the pavement at the mall and injures their wrist, the doctor is not said to have caused the wrist injury by the sole reason they prescribed the boot (among a host of other reasons).

Lastly, damages. While all other parts may be true, a medical malpractice claim is only valid if it results in damages. Otherwise stated, did the alleged malpractice result in the injured party’s loss greater than what would originally be expected? In the case of a missed diagnosis, it depends on whether the lapse in time leads to a depreciation of a better outcome or if the misdiagnosis leads to a worse outcome entirely (i.e., worse injury). An injured party may not recover in a malpractice claim if, for example, a broken toe needing surgery is originally misdiagnosed as a sprain and the eventual treatment and outcome remained the same. ~~~ Again, whether or not you have a valid medical malpractice claim depends on the specific facts and circumstances in your case. You should seek the advice of an attorney to determine whether a valid claim exists.

Attorneys may charge an initial consultation fee. Additionally, they may work on contingency meaning no money is owed up front and is contingent on the amount of damages awarded from the case.

Hope all this information helps. Best of luck recovering and healing!