Truck Accident Lawyer
Uber Accident Lawyer
Lyft Accident Lawyer
Knowledge, experience, and dedication have brought the lawyers of The Epstein Law Firm to the forefront of their profession. From personal injury to civil litigation, they have built a strong record of success in achieving justice for their clients.
Our practice is diverse and well-established. Recognizing that every case is unique, we always begin by listening to you.
The Epstein Law Firm, P.A. has been successfully representing clients throughout New Jersey since 1973
Modern medicine runs on imaging. The X-ray, CT, MRI, mammogram, or ultrasound is often the moment a diagnosis is made — or missed. When a radiologist overlooks a fracture, a tumor, or a bleed that was visible on the study, every downstream decision is built on the error: the emergency patient is sent home, the cancer grows another stage, the fracture heals crooked. And because the patient never meets the radiologist, these errors can stay buried in a chart for months, discovered only when a later scan is compared against the first.
The Epstein Law Firm represents New Jersey patients harmed when imaging was misread or its results were never communicated, from our Rochelle Park office. This page explains the radiology errors we investigate, how they happen, and how New Jersey law treats the claims, as part of our New Jersey medical malpractice practice. If a scan of yours was misread, call (201) 231-7847 for a free review.
The core radiology error is a finding that was present and reasonably visible but not reported: fractures on emergency X-rays, lung nodules and breast lesions on screening studies, intracranial bleeds and early strokes on head CTs, aortic dissections, appendicitis, and cancers visible in retrospect on studies read as normal. Expert re-reads classify these as perceptual errors (the finding was never seen) or interpretive errors (it was seen and misjudged), and the distinction matters, because the specialty’s standards address how a careful radiologist searches a study.
A correct report that never reaches anyone who acts on it is its own error. Radiologists must communicate critical and unexpected findings directly to the treating team, and facilities must have systems ensuring reports are reviewed and patients are told. The recurring disaster is the outpatient study whose alarming finding is filed while the patient is assured the results were fine — a failure shared among the radiologist, the ordering clinician, and the institution whose follow-up systems did not exist.
Imaging done for one purpose regularly reveals something else: a thyroid nodule on a neck CT, a renal mass on a lumbar MRI, a lung nodule on a cardiac study. The American College of Radiology publishes detailed guidance on reporting and recommending follow-up for incidental findings. When the recommendation is dictated but never transmitted, scheduled, or tracked, the incidental finding becomes the main injury, and the delay is measured in stages of disease.
Reports attached to the wrong patient, left-right reversals, and dictation errors that change a finding’s meaning send treating physicians down wrong paths. These administrative errors are radiology errors too, and the imaging system’s audit trail — who opened the study, when, and what changed — usually identifies exactly where the record went wrong.
The Epstein Law Firm
Medical malpractice legal help
The Epstein Law Firm can review your medical malpractice claim and explain the evidence, deadlines, and next steps that may apply.
Call now
(201) 231-7847Schedule your free case evaluation
Radiology is a volume specialty practiced under time pressure, increasingly by overnight and remote teleradiology services covering hospitals they have never visited. The research on diagnostic error in radiology points to recurring causes: satisfaction of search (stopping at the first finding and missing the second), failure to compare with prior studies, interruptions and fatigue on overnight shifts, incomplete clinical information from the ordering clinician, and the absence of any system confirming that a reported finding produced action. None of these excuses a misread that a reasonably careful radiologist would have caught, but all of them explain why these cases so often involve institutions as well as individuals: the hospital chose the coverage model, set the turnaround expectations, and owned the follow-up systems.
North Jersey imaging is performed across the major systems — Hackensack Meridian, RWJBarnabas, Valley, Holy Name, and St. Joseph’s among them — and increasingly read by radiology groups serving many hospitals at once. Our investigation therefore starts with the full imaging record: the images themselves, the priors, the report versions, the audit trail, and the communications log, before any expert renders an opinion.
Two safeguards deserve mention because their absence often features in these cases. The first is the genuine second read: some practices double-read screening studies or route equivocal cases to a subspecialist, and a facility that advertises that rigor but skips it on the night in question has explaining to do. The second is the comparison habit itself: a radiologist who signs a report without opening the priors visible in the same system has forgone the cheapest error-check in the specialty. Computer-aided detection and newer AI tools are adjuncts, not substitutes; a practice’s reliance on them does not lower the standard the human reader must meet.
Screening imaging — mammograms, low-dose lung CTs, and surveillance studies for patients at elevated risk — deserves separate mention, because its errors compound silently. A screening examination is performed on a person who feels well; a missed lesion does not announce itself with symptoms until it has advanced, and the next scheduled screen may be a year or more away. False reassurance is therefore the injury: the patient is told to return in twelve months while a treatable cancer grows. Screening cases also raise distinctive proof questions, including whether the study was technically adequate, whether the facility’s recall and follow-up systems complied with federal mammography standards, and whether an abnormality visible at low conspicuity crossed the line a reasonably careful reader must catch. Not every missed screening lesion is negligence — some are below any reader’s threshold — which is why the blinded expert re-read, in which the reviewing radiologist assesses the study without knowing where the cancer later appeared, carries such weight with courts and juries.
Pediatric imaging presents its own variant: growth-plate fractures and early signs of non-accidental injury are missed in emergency settings with consequences that unfold over years, and New Jersey’s tolling rules for minors interact with the discovery rule in ways that require individual analysis. Whatever the patient’s age, the analytical structure is the same: the images, the report, the communication, and the timeline.
In radiology cases the injury is time. A lung cancer visible at Stage I and reported at Stage III is a different disease with different treatment and different odds. A stroke unrecognized in its treatment window is a lifetime of disability that intervention might have prevented. A fracture dismissed as a sprain displaces, heals in malunion, and trades a cast for surgery. New Jersey law recognizes this structure through the increased-risk doctrine associated with Scafidi v. Seiler: where a diagnostic delay worsened the patient’s prognosis, the patient may recover for that worsening even if the underlying condition was already serious. Proving it requires two coordinated expert opinions — the radiologist on the misread, and the treating specialist (oncologist, neurologist, orthopedist) on what earlier treatment would have achieved — and assembling that pair is the heart of these cases.
Families also live with a distinctive secondary harm: the knowledge that the answer existed, in writing, inside the chart, while they were told nothing was wrong. Our broader misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis pages address diagnostic failure across all specialties; this page stays with the imaging itself, where so many of those cases begin.
A radiology claim must prove, ordinarily through a qualified radiologist’s expert testimony, that the interpretation or communication deviated from accepted standards — informed by the American College of Radiology’s practice parameters — and that the deviation caused the harm. New Jersey’s affidavit of merit statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, requires an expert affidavit within 60 days after the defendant’s answer, so the re-read must happen before filing, not during discovery. The statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, is generally two years, and New Jersey’s discovery rule is central in radiology cases: the clock typically runs from when the patient learned, or should have learned, that the earlier study had been misread, which may be years after the study itself. Compensatory damages are not capped in New Jersey medical malpractice cases, though claims against nonprofit hospitals can meet charitable-immunity limits, and identifying each responsible party — radiologist, group, facility, ordering clinician — comes first.
The Epstein Law Firm can review the evidence, insurance issues, and next steps that may matter in your medical malpractice claim.
Get the actual images, not just the reports. Request the complete imaging studies (the DICOM files) and reports from every facility, including priors; re-reads are performed on the images themselves. Write down the timeline: when the study was done, what you were told, when you learned the truth, and from whom. In a discovery-rule case, those dates are legally decisive. Continue your treatment with your current physicians and follow the new plan; your health comes before the claim, and gaps in care complicate both. Do not accept ‘radiology is an art’ as an answer without an independent re-read by a radiologist who does not know the outcome. And act promptly: expert review, the affidavit of merit, and the limitations clock all reward an early start.
We secure the images, priors, report versions, and audit trails before memories fade and retention schedules run. A radiologist in the same subspecialty re-reads the study, and a treating-specialty expert addresses what timely diagnosis would have changed. Where communication failed, we build the handoff record: who was notified, when, and what the facility’s own policies required. The case is then filed in the Superior Court of the appropriate county and prepared for trial, because radiology groups and their insurers settle the cases whose re-reads they cannot answer.
One methodological point matters: our re-reads are performed blinded wherever possible, meaning the reviewing radiologist first interprets the study without the later diagnosis in hand, and only afterward compares the original report. A finding that a blinded reviewer catches in the ordinary course is powerful evidence it should have been caught the first time; a finding visible only with hindsight is treated candidly as such, and if the review does not support a claim, we say so before suit is ever filed.
The Epstein Law Firm has represented New Jersey medical malpractice clients for decades from our Rochelle Park office. Michael J. Epstein was selected to the New Jersey Super Lawyers Top 100 list for 2026 and holds an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and TopVerdict has ranked the firm’s results at the top of New Jersey lists, including the Number 1 Medical Malpractice Settlement in the state in 2024 and a Top 10 New Jersey Personal Injury Settlement that year. Read the PR Newswire release on the firm’s Top 20 U.S. medical malpractice settlement recognition, and see the firm’s post on Michael Epstein’s 2026 Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year recognition. Our medical malpractice attorneys have litigated diagnostic-delay cases in which the decisive evidence was the original study itself — and the months of treatment decisions built on a report that should never have been written.
Our attorneys have recovered substantial verdicts and settlements for clients across New Jersey, including:
Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. What they do show is the level of preparation and persistence our firm brings to serious claims. Read more about our case results, or call (201) 231-7847 to talk about what your own claim may involve.
Client reviews describe the responsiveness and care our team aims to deliver in every case:
“Michael Epstein is a wonderful, smart, caring and intelligent attorney. He was always responsive, supportive and got me dismissed from a high stakes lawsuit. I highly recommend him and the firm.” — Leslie, Google review
“Our experience working with The Epstein Law Firm was outstanding. There was regular communication throughout the entire process, and they kept us informed at every step. I would definitely endorse this firm to anyone seeking reliable and effective legal support.” — Esther, Google review
“I will definitely recommend the Epstein Law Firm P.A. to friends and other people whom I will know to have been involved in an accident.” — Aristeo, Google review
Read more from our clients on our Google reviews for the Rochelle Park office.
Tell The Epstein Law Firm what happened and get clear guidance about your injury claim and legal options.
Recognition applies to the named attorneys and selection years. See the linked profiles for details.
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Rating methodology
Below are answers to common questions about radiology errors in New Jersey. This information is general and not legal advice — contact our office for guidance about your specific situation.
Possibly. The question is whether a reasonably careful radiologist, looking at the same images under the same conditions, would have seen the fracture — and whether the delay in diagnosis changed your outcome, for example by letting a fracture displace, heal badly, or require surgery that prompt casting would have avoided.
Missed-fracture cases are proven by having an independent radiologist re-read the original images and by documenting what the delay cost you medically. If the fracture would have healed identically with a same-day diagnosis, the claim is weak; if the delay caused real harm, it is worth pursuing.
Sources: American College of Radiology – practice parameters; N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, affidavit of merit (Cornell Law Institute)
It can be. A radiologist’s duty does not end with dictating a report: critical and unexpected findings must be communicated to the treating clinician in a way that ensures they are acted on, and facilities have their own obligations to close the loop with the patient. A cancer, aneurysm, or other serious finding that sits unread in a chart while the patient is told ‘everything looked fine’ is a recurring fact pattern in these cases.
Liability may rest with the radiologist, the ordering physician who never reviewed the report, the facility, or a combination. The audit trail of the imaging system and the chart usually shows exactly where the communication broke down.
Sources: American College of Radiology – practice parameters; New Jersey Courts – Civil Division overview
An incidental finding is an abnormality spotted on imaging done for another purpose — a lung nodule on a cardiac scan, a kidney mass on a spine MRI. Radiologists are expected to report these findings and, under American College of Radiology guidance, recommend appropriate follow-up. When the recommendation is made but never transmitted, or transmitted but never scheduled, a curable condition can advance in silence.
These cases turn on the report language, the facility’s follow-up systems, and what earlier treatment would have achieved. We trace each handoff to find where the follow-up died.
Sources: American College of Radiology – practice parameters; N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, two-year limitations period (Cornell Law Institute)
Yes. The radiologist who interprets your study owes you the same duty as a physician who examined you in person. Most radiology is practiced exactly this way — including overnight and teleradiology coverage by physicians in other states — and the standard of care follows the images, not the geography.
The interpreting radiologist is identified in the report and the imaging system’s audit trail, and out-of-state coverage arrangements do not shield them from a New Jersey claim arising from New Jersey care.
Sources: N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, affidavit of merit (Cornell Law Institute); New Jersey Courts – Civil Division overview
Generally two years under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, but the clock usually starts when you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, both the injury and that a misread may have caused it. A patient told for a year that a scan was clear, who then learns a tumor was visible on it, ordinarily measures the deadline from that discovery.
Because an expert radiologist must re-read the images before the affidavit of merit can be served, do not measure the deadline yourself. Have the study reviewed as soon as you learn of the error.
Sources: N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, two-year limitations period (Cornell Law Institute); N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, affidavit of merit (Cornell Law Institute)
Two things: that the signs of the stroke were present and reasonably visible on the study, and that timely recognition would have changed the treatment and the outcome — for ischemic stroke, the window for clot-busting drugs and thrombectomy is measured in hours. These cases pair a neuroradiologist’s re-read with stroke-neurology testimony about what earlier treatment offered.
Emergency imaging cases often involve several defendants, including the emergency physicians who acted on the report. Our emergency room errors page covers the ER side of these events.
Sources: American College of Radiology – practice parameters; Makary & Daniel, medical error study, The BMJ (2016)
Compensation follows the harm the delay caused: the more advanced treatment the condition required, the lost chance of cure or recovery, added medical expense, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. In missed-cancer cases, New Jersey law allows recovery for the increased risk and worsened prognosis a delay produced, even when the original condition was serious.
New Jersey does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases. The size of the claim is driven by expert proof of what timely diagnosis would have changed.
Sources: N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, two-year limitations period (Cornell Law Institute); New Jersey Courts – Civil Division overview
A qualified radiology expert, engaged through counsel, re-reads the original images — ideally without knowing the outcome, the way courts prefer — and compares the findings against what the original radiologist reported and what the specialty’s practice parameters require. If the expert concludes the study was misread, that opinion supports the affidavit of merit New Jersey requires.
Our firm obtains the complete imaging, priors for comparison, and audit trails, then puts them in front of radiologists in the same subspecialty as the original reader.
Sources: N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, affidavit of merit (Cornell Law Institute); American College of Radiology – practice parameters
Radiologists are expected to compare a new study with relevant prior imaging. A nodule that has grown since last year’s scan demands a different response than one that is new or unchanged, and a report that never mentions the priors may reveal that the comparison was never made. Priors also establish when a finding first became visible, which fixes the length of the delay.
We obtain priors from every facility that has imaged you, not just the defendant hospital, because the timeline they create is often the spine of the case.
Nothing out of pocket. Consultations are free and confidential, and medical malpractice cases are handled on a contingency fee under the schedule New Jersey court rules set: we are paid a percentage of the recovery only if we obtain compensation for you.
If our radiology experts conclude the study was read reasonably, we will tell you that plainly and explain why. Either way, you will know where you stand before any deadline becomes a problem.
Sources: New Jersey Courts – Civil Division overview; N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, two-year limitations period (Cornell Law Institute)
$31,000,000
$13,585,000
*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. *No aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. View Rating Methodology
Δ
<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>
340 West Passaic Street Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
Fax: 201-845-5973 201-231-7847
Map + Directions
560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 1000-A Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 (By Appointment Only)
201-734-3763
Map + directions
18-20 Lackawanna Plaza, Suite 200 Montclair, NJ 07042 (By Appointment Only)
973-381-8410
The Epstein Law Firm
The Epstein Law Firm