Having examined in our previous column the type of proof involved in establishing causation in cases based upon delays in diagnosing cancer, we now turn our focus to the manner in which the courts have addressed causation in particular types of cancers. There are multiple ways to prove causation, but it is ultimately based on decreasing survivability and/or increasing pain and suffering.
It is important to analyze these cases by specific types of cancer because the prognosis and treatments may vary widely for different cancers. With some cancers, a few weeks delay in diagnosis may be the difference between life and death. For other cancers, like the mesothelioma case discussed in Part I of this column, even a lengthy delay may have no impact on the prognosis or treatment. Even within a particular type of cancer, there may be great disparities in terms of the impact of the delay. Causation can depend on an array of facts and circumstances such as the type of tumor, the existence of conditions that may impact its aggressiveness, and the stage at which it could have been diagnosed.
