Posts Tagged ‘million’

Broken Arrow Doctor Claiming To Cure Cancer Fined $2.5 Million For Fraud

Broken Arrow Doctor Claiming To Cure Cancer Fined $2.5 Million For Fraud
A woman with a clinic in Broken Arrow says she will keep healing patients of cancer even though she’s been ordered to pay $2.5 million for fraud. Broken Arrow Clinic Claims To Cure Cancer

Read more on News On 6 Tulsa

Special license plates bring in $1.2 million for State Road Fund

Special license plates bring in $1.2 million for State Road Fund
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The Friends of Coal Association became the first nonprofit group to be approved for its own special license plates through the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles. In 2010, the Legislature approved a program that allows charitabl…

Read more on The Charleston Gazette

Inovio first quarter total revenue increases to $3.1 million for 2011

Inovio first quarter total revenue increases to $3.1 million for 2011
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today reported financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Read more on News-Medical-Net

Pacific Life Foundation Announces $2.75 Million in Grants to Nearly 200 Nonprofit Agencies in Southern California …

Pacific Life Foundation Announces $2.75 Million in Grants to Nearly 200 Nonprofit Agencies in Southern California …
The Pacific Life Foundation announced $2.75 million in grants, ranging from $5,000 to $100,000, to nearly 200 nonprofit agencies serving Southern California during an early Monday evening reception.

Read more on Business Wire via Yahoo! Finance

NFL Donates $1 Million To American Cancer Society

NFL Donates $1 Million To American Cancer Society
The NFL will donate more than $1 million to the American Cancer Society as a result of this year’s breast cancer awareness campaign.

Read more on CBS New York

Tigris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Completes $6.5 Million Private Placement

Tigris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Completes $6.5 Million Private Placement
Tigris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a privately held drug development company, announced today that it has completed a private placement of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock resulting in gross proceeds of approximately $6.5 million. Â The financing, which was led by Mr.

Read more on PR Newswire via Yahoo! Finance

$1 million goal: Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk is set for Oct. 17

$1 million goal: Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk is set for Oct. 17
Central Valley The “Making Strides Against Breast Cancer” walks, non-competitive 5K events, will be held at the Woodbury Common Premium Outlets in Central Valley on Sunday, Oct. 17.

Read more on The Warwick Advertiser

City of Hope receives $3.3 million grant

City of Hope receives $3.3 million grant
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has awarded City of Hope a five-year, $3.3 million grant to investigate whether a low daily dose of tamoxifen will decrease the risk of breast cancer among women who have been treated for Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood, adolescence or early adulthood.

Read more on Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

Mayo scientist receives $11 million to study pharmacogenomics

Mayo scientist receives $11 million to study pharmacogenomics
The National Institutes of Health has awarded a Mayo Clinic researcher $11.2 million to study how analyzing human DNA can improve patient response to drugs. Dr. Richard Weinshilboum is one of 21 researchers across the country to receive a collective $161.3 million over the next five years to study pharmacogenomics. The scientists will use genome sequencing techniques [...]

Read more on MedCity News

12 Million Jury Award For Patient When Doctors Misdiagnosed Her Breast Cancer

The mammogram is a primary tool available to physicians to find a female patient’s breast cancer while it is still in the early stages, thus saving the lives of these patients. Still, the mammogram is only as reliable as the physician who interprets it. If the doctor misreads the mammogram the cancer can be undiagnosed until a later mammogram or such time as a lump is noticed by a breast examination. In the course of this time, the cancer may become advanced. By getting to a late stage, the woman has a diminished five year survival rate. Consequently the probability of her dying of the cancer go up considerably.

Look into the reported matter of a woman who went in for a routine mammogram and was told that there was no sign of cancer. Around two years after, the woman underwent another mammogram. This mammogram was read as showing no change to the dilated duct from the earlier mammogram. However, the previous mammogram had not revealed a dilated duct and so the physicians did nothing to study the suspicious change from the previous, clean, mammogram. Her mammogram was misinterpreted and her cancer was not detected. When the patient went in for another mammogram at a different hospital the following year, the physician who read the mammogram described several small nodular densities. The physician noted that these remained unchanged from the prior mammograms. However, neither of the previous mammograms had included any nodular densities. Once again, her mammogram was misread and again her cancer was not diagnosed.

When the patient was at last diagnosed at a future date, she had stage 4 breast cancer that had metastasized. It was also discovered that the spot that had earlier been described as a dilated duct was location of the primary tumor. She filed a medical malpractice case against both physicians and hospitals.

The doctor and hospital that read the third mammogram as revealing small nodular densities reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum in an amount less that the $2.0 million available in insurance coverage. The doctor and hospital that incorrectly interpreted the prior mammogram refused to settle for the full amount of the policy, offering only $125,000. The case went to trial where evidence was presented that had the mammogram not been misread the cancer could have been detected while still a Stage 1 cancer, which generally has a 5 year survival rate well above 90%. The law firm that handled the lawsuit reported that the jury came back with a verdict of $12,000,000.

This case illustrates several important points. First, 2 separate mammograms were incorrectly interpreted by two different physicians at two distinct hospitals. And both doctors attributed findings to prior mammograms which were not found in those earlier mammograms. It is tough to figure out how this might have occurred unless the physicians each looked at a different patient’s mammogram as the comparison. However the chances of this occurring twice at 2 hospitals is highly unlikely. But the level of negligence that would be needed otherwise is genuinely unexcusable. The jury appears to have agreed.