Jury Awards $7 Million in Lauderdale County Medical Negligence Case

A Lauderdale County jury returned a $7 million verdict in favor of Sunitha Madasu against Donald J. Bowling, M.D. and Lauderdale Radiology Group, L.L.P. following a 10-day medical negligence trial. The case centered on Dr. Bowling's failure to identify and report a blood clot visible on Madasu's head CT scan, which led to catastrophic brain injuries three days later when she suffered a massive brain bleed.

Madasu, a 46-year-old local dentist who has practiced in Lauderdale County for over two decades, initially presented to the Emergency Department at Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital with severe headache, nausea and vomiting. After a physical examination, the ER doctor ordered a CT scan of her head. Dr. Bowling, who the jury found was working as an agent of Lauderdale Radiology, reviewed the CT images and reported the study as "Normal" despite the presence of a bright spot indicating an acute blood clot visible on twenty consecutive slices of the imaging.

The evidence presented at trial showed that a reasonably careful diagnostic radiologist would have recognized the bright spot as concerning for an acute blood clot and recommended further evaluation. Relying on Dr. Bowling's report, the ER doctor discharged Madasu from the hospital. At trial, the defendants and their experts admitted that the bright spot probably was a clot and that a simple follow-up test would have confirmed the diagnosis, though they denied any wrongdoing.

Medical experts testified that had the finding been properly reported, Madasu would have received medication and made a full, uneventful recovery. Instead, she suffered lifelong, debilitating injuries that robbed her of her independence, mobility, and professional dental career. The case was tried by MARSH | RICKARD | BRYAN attorneys Ty Brown and J.D. Marsh, with local attorney Kerrian Jaudon providing additional counsel. Brown stated that the jury "enforced basic standards of safe medical care, defended Sunitha's dignity, and held the Defendants responsible for the independence, mobility, and professional career they took from her."

The substantial verdict underscores the critical importance of accurate radiological interpretation and communication in emergency medical settings. This case demonstrates how failure to identify and report obvious abnormalities on diagnostic imaging can lead to preventable catastrophic outcomes for patients. The jury's decision serves as a reminder of the professional standards expected of medical providers and the serious consequences when those standards are not met.