A jury sometimes doesn’t realize the ripple effects of large malpractice awards. These letters aim to educate them after they awarded $5.7 million:

. . . mammography is one of the lowest reimbursed tests in radiology, and it carries the highest litigation risk.

No one wants to read mammograms. Many radiologists would rather do invasive procedures than read a mammogram.

So to the jury in this case: Be proud of yourselves; you have given an enormous award to a dying woman. I hope in the future that there are radiologists available to read your mammograms and those of your daughters.

. . . The average general radiologist interprets between 12,000 and 15,000 examinations a year. Included may be 2,000 to 3,000 mammograms. The most conscientious and educated radiologist cannot be perfect.

The huge penalty inflicted here will have three results:

1. Fewer radiologists will be willing to perform mammography. There now is a national shortage of qualified mammographers.

2. Because of malpractice fear, more women will be called back for questionable studies, subjecting them to unnecessary radiation and further expense to the system.

3. More women will be subject to questionable biopsies.

The people ultimately most harmed by awards such as these are women and their families.