Is my daughters misdiagnose worth

My daughter 5yo was told twice she
had a ‘stomach virus’, once in the ER
and a follow up four days later at the
pediatric office. I was just told to wait
out the virus, it should go away. I
couldn’t stand to watch my child be in
so much pain and to not be
eating/drinking anything all that time.
So the next day I took her to a different
hospital, there they found out she had
appendicitis, but not only that it had
ruptured. She was flown out same day
to a better facility where they specialize
in it, due to the fact it was pretty bad
and her being so young. She stayed in
the hospital for three weeks after
surgery to recieve treatment and
medication. My question is, do I let
something like this go? Is it worth

Asked on June 28, 2016 under Malpractice Law, Arizona


SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 4 years ago | Contributor

If, as we hope, your daughter is now fine with no lasting consequences, then all you could sue for is the *additional* medical costs incurred because of the delays in diagnosis: that is, for out-of-pocket costs you only incurred because of the misdiagnosis (costs you would not have incurred if diagnosed correctly earlier). Since a medical malpractice suit can be very expensive (you have to hire  a medical expert to write a report and testify, and such experts can cost thousands of dollars), unless the medical costs are very large, it would not be worth suing. 
If there was a lasting harm to your child, then it is a very different story and you should speak with a medical malpractice attorney to explore your options.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.