Senior Trial Partner Thomas A. Mobilia and Trial Partner Aryeh S. Klonsky obtained a defense verdict on behalf of our clients, a NY based radiologist and his employer, a premier radiology practice with locations throughout the New York metropolitan area. The defense verdict was rendered in January 2025 before the Honorable Philippe Solages in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County. At the close of Defendants’ case, but prior to the verdict, the defense had successfully obtained voluntary discontinuances against two other named defendant radiologists.
This case involved a then 58-year-old male who alleged that the defendants misinterpreted a series of abdominal ultrasounds identifying gallbladder polyps, rather than benign gallstones/sludge, resulting in an unnecessary fear of cancer, unnecessary gallbladder removal surgery, and increased bowel movements.
The plaintiff initially presented to the defendant radiology facility for an abdominal ultrasound, ordered secondary to elevated liver function tests. A non-party radiologist identified an incidental 0.5cm polyp and sludge in the gallbladder, without bile duct dilation.
Approximately, six months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant radiology facility for a follow-up abdominal ultrasound in connection with the prior finding of a “polyp.” A non-party radiologist identified the 0.5cm polyp unchanged from the prior examination.
Fifteen months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant radiology facility for continued abdominal ultrasound monitoring of the gallbladder polyp. Our client, the defendant radiologist identified a gallbladder polyp measuring 0.8cm, enlarged from the prior exam, where it had measured 0.5cm. The defendant radiologist recommended ultrasound follow-up to monitor the polyp.
Eight months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant radiology facility for another abdominal ultrasound. Our client, another defendant radiologist, identified multiple gallbladder polyps, measuring 0.8cm (slightly increased in size), 0.3cm (new polyp), and 0.5 cm(new polyp).
In response to the enlarged gallbladder polyps and new polyps appreciated on ultrasound, the plaintiff’s internist referred him for surgical consultation. The non-party surgeon recommended continued monitoring of the polyps with a plan for surgical removal of the gallbladder if future ultrasound studies showed growth of the presumed gallbladder polyps to 1 cm or greater, due to the elevated cancer risk.
Another eight months later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant radiology facility for another abdominal ultrasound. The third defendant radiologist identified enlarging gallbladder polyps measuring 1.5 cm and 0.7 cm, and recommended surgical consultation and/or an MRCP as felt indicated. The ultrasound report was forwarded to the plaintiff’s surgeon, who recommended surgery to remove the gallbladder.
Just under one month later, the non-party surgeon performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical pathology identified three small sub centimeter gallstones, but no polyps.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant radiologists had improperly interpreted all of the prior abdominal ultrasounds. The plaintiff’s radiology expert testified at trial that the ultrasounds were consistent with gallstones and that it was a departure from good and accepted medical practice to have reported gallbladder polyps. The plaintiff’s surgeon provided testimony at trial that he recommended and performed surgery based solely on the radiologists’ impression of an enlarging polyp measuring greater than 1.0cm. The plaintiff argued at trial that in retrospect, the plaintiff only had gallstones, was asymptomatic, and therefore, he did not have any risk for cancer, and the surgery that had been performed was unnecessary. The plaintiff further argued that the pathology report revealing no gallbladder polyps, only stones, proved that the defendant radiologists had misinterpreted the ultrasounds.
During the trial, the defense argued that MCB’s radiologist clients appropriately evaluated the abdominal ultrasounds, and the ultrasound imaging of the gallbladder suggested findings that were consistent with gallbladder polyps, without characteristics of gallstones. The defense further argued that the lack of polyps seen on pathology does not suggest that the defendant radiologists misinterpreted the ultrasounds as the ultrasound images did suggest signs of enlarging polyps within the gallbladder.
After a two-week trial, and two days of jury deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict as to both the remaining defendant radiologist and the defendant radiology practice.