Super Lawyers
Justia Lawyer Rating for Ronald V. Miller Jr.
Best Law Firms
Avvo Rating - 10
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Litigator Awards

Aortic Dissection Wrongful Death Lawsuits

Our aortic dissection medical malpractice lawyers look at wrongful death lawsuits involving aortic dissection negligence, typically misdiagnosis, and the settlement value of these cases.

An aortic dissection is pretty much what it sounds like: a tear in the artery. An aortic dissection results from trauma or a tear that occurs in the inner layer of the aortic wall, resulting in bleeding into the wall of the aorta, and has a high mortality if untreated. The one-year mortality rate for aortic dissection is 90%.

aortic dissection malpractice

An aortic dissection involving the ascending aorta (in the upper chest) is a highly lethal condition classically associated with the onset of back pain and high blood pressure, particularly intra-scapular and shoulder pain.

Aortic dissection is twice as frequent as the second most common grave danger to the aorta, the abdominal aortic aneurysm. Still, many patients survive both an abdominal aortic aneurysm and an aortic dissection, mainly when the doctor spots the problem before they blow the aorta open. But, all too frequently, aortic dissections are missed and lead to wrongful death medical malpractice lawsuits.

Our lawyers handle these cases. If you think you have a potential wrongful death medical malpractice claim for someone you loved because the ER doctor or another doctor failed to diagnose an aortic dissection, call 800-553-8082 to discuss your potential malpractice case or get a free online case evaluation.

How Do Aortic Dissections Occur?

Aneurysms are slow to develop, taking years, and are often asymptomatic (without symptoms). Symptoms may develop suddenly if an aneurysm ruptures (tears open).

Symptoms of rupture include severe, sudden, or constant pain in the abdomen or back that may radiate to the groin, legs, or buttocks. Other aortic dissection symptoms include clammy skin, nausea, vomiting, rapid heart rate, and shock.

Types of Dissections and Risk Factors

Aortic dissection is the most common emergency involving the aorta and most commonly occurs in patients aged 50 to 70. The prevalence of aortic dissection is estimated to be approximately 2 in 10,000 people. Though rare in children, it has been associated with coarctation of the aorta (a congenital birth defect).

Aortic dissection may be classified using the Stanford classification as Type A (beginning in the ascending part of the aorta, DeBakey type I or II) or Type B (starting in the descending part of the aorta, DeBakey type III). The DeBakey classification system is as follows:

  • Type I: aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta (30%).
  • Type II: ascending aorta only (20%).
  • Type III: descending aorta distal to left subclavian (50%).

Though the exact cause of aortic dissection is not currently known, several risk factors, both congenital and acquired, have been identified, including:

  • Atherosclerosis
  • Bicuspid aortic valve
  • Coarctation (narrowing) of the aorta
  • Connective tissue disorders
  • Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
  • Heart surgery or procedures
  • High blood pressure (80% of patients having an aortic dissection have high blood pressure)
  • Marfan syndrome
  • Pregnancy (approximately 50% of all cases of aortic in women <40 years are associated with pregnancy, most occurring in the third trimester or early postpartum)
  • Pseudoxanthoma elasticum
  • Trauma (blunt chest trauma, i.e., hitting the steering wheel of a car during a car accident)
  • Vascular inflammation resulting from conditions such as arteritis (inflammation of the lining of arteries) and syphilis

Misdiagnosis of Aortic Dissections

Aortic Dissection Undoubtedly, an aortic dissection diagnosis requires a good doctor: incompetent doctors will not catch it. Getting it right requires a high degree of suspicion because symptoms can vary. Good patient medical history, physical examinations, ECG (electrocardiography), imaging, and laboratory studies are essential in diagnosing aortic dissection. Symptoms are usually sudden and include severe chest pain.

The pain may be sharp, stabbing, ripping, or tearing, and felt below the chest bone, then moving to the back or under the shoulder blades, shoulder, neck, jaw, or abdomen. As the aortic dissection rupture worsens, the pain may move to the arms and legs.

Besides pain, patients may experience confusion or disorientation, dizziness, fainting, nausea and vomiting, sweating, decreased movement or sensation in other parts of the body, dry mouth or skin, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing when lying flat, or a rapid or weak pulse. Again, other aortic dissection symptoms include low blood pressure or variation between blood pressure measurements between left and right arms and legs.

malpracticeclaims Aortic dissections may be evident through aortic angiography, chest X-rays, MRI, CT scan, echocardiogram, or ultrasonography. The starting point is a CT scan because it is a very accurate test for diagnosing aortic dissection.

So what is a doctor required to do? The standard of care when diagnosing a patient complaining of an acute onset of severe chest or upper back pain/shoulder requires that the doctor order a chest CT scan to rule out potentially fatal conditions. High blood pressure readings would further increase the likelihood of an aortic dissection.

Doctors get this wrong way too often. Doctors correctly suspect the diagnosis in as few as 15% to 43% of cases.

A Timely Aortic Dissection Diagnosis is Critical

Quick diagnosis is imperative to reduce the risk of mortality as the risk of death increases with each passing hour. It is such a serious concern because 20% of patients may die before reaching the hospital, and diagnosis is not made until autopsy in 15% of all cases.

In the absence of surgery, 80% of patients will die within two weeks and 40% within 24 hours. Although surgery can result in an 80% chance of survival, aortic surgery comes with a risk of mortality in the region of 25%.

There was an interesting new study of interest in the American Journal of Cardiology. The gist of it is that acute aortic syndrome (AAS), which includes acute aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating ulcer of the aorta, is often confused with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), which includes myocardial infarction. This confusion has often led to malpractice because of the delayed diagnosis.

The Wrong Diagnosis Can Make the Patient Worse

Further, this confusion results in inappropriate treatment such as anti-platelet, anti-thrombin, or fibrinolytic therapy
. Exposing a patient with aortic dissection to such treatments can lead to hemodynamic instability, among other problems. Hemodynamic instability before surgery for aortic dissection has been associated with adverse outcomes. The use of a fibrinolytic in patients with aortic dissection can lead to severe hemorrhagic complications and result in an estimated mortality rate of 71%. Sadly, this is not far from the death rate if the patient had gone untreated.

In another study in the Journal of Cardiology, 109 emergency room patients eventually diagnosed with aortic dissection were examined. The failure to diagnose aortic dissection occurred in 16% of patients admitted to the emergency room. Other studies have estimated the rate of misdiagnosis of aortic dissection to be closer to 25-31% and are most commonly misdiagnosed as myocardial infarction.

Getting a Proper Medical History Matters

The lack of or incomplete capture of medical history in the emergency room can lead to misdiagnosis. Clinical examination and chest radiography alone are insufficient to diagnose aortic dissection. Further, no specific blood tests are available, though recently discovered markers might soon be of more help.

These challenges, coupled with the fact that emergency departments see more patients presenting with myocardial infarction compared to those with acute coronary syndrome, in a ratio of nearly 2900 to 5, often lead to misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment of the patient, which can put the patient at further risk for an adverse outcome.

Aortic Dissections Deaths Are Declining

Thankfully, aortic dissection deaths have been declining since the introduction of cardiopulmonary bypass in the 1950s and aortic arch repair in 1955.

Further advances in diagnosis and reparative techniques, including stent placement and percutaneous aortic fenestrations, have helped further reduce mortality rates.

Although mortality rates have declined in the past 60 years, the rate of death remains high – too high – and can be further improved by timely, correct diagnosis and proper management. Doctors are getting better at diagnosing aortic dissection. But there are still too many missed opportunities to solve this usually curable problem and avoid the patient’s death.

Aortic Dissections Medical Malpractice Verdicts

These mistakes lead to aortic dissection medical malpractice lawsuits. This is a sampling of relatively recent plaintiffs’ aortic aneurysm verdicts and settlements:

    • 2023 Pennsylvania, $1,000,000 settlement: A man went to the emergency department of Einstein Medical Center/Montgomery and Einstein Practice Plan with chest and epigastric pain, along with vomiting. Brant had a known history of abdominal aortic aneurysm. He was triaged and examined. Despite observing no abnormalities, he was prescribed medications for nausea and pain. The differential diagnoses considered were myocardial infarction, atypical chest pain, aortic dissection, and gastritis/viral illness. An echocardiogram appeared normal, and a chest X-ray showed no significant changes from a previous one.  Despite these symptoms and history, he was discharged from the hospital. Sadly, he passed away the following day due to a ruptured aortic dissection. His family hired a lawyer and filed a wrongful death and survival action lawsuit, alleging medical negligence. The claims focused on the failure to adequately consider the man’s history of abdominal aortic aneurysm and the proper diagnosis and treatment of a ruptured aortic dissection.
    • 2020 California, $320,000 settlement: A 37-year-old woman suffered face and left arm numbness, leg weakness, and a headache. She also saw floaters in her left eye. The woman visited an internist. She was transferred to the ER. The hospital admitted her with crossed eyes, facial weakness and tingling, chest pain, and shortness of breath. A pulmonary CT scan showed a potential aortic dissection, while an MRI revealed potential ischemia. The woman was transferred to a higher-level facility. Her right arm’s blood pressure was lower than her left arm’s. The cardiothoracic surgeon diagnosed her with mild aortic insufficiency. He decided against surgery. The following day, the woman became unresponsive. She was subsequently intubated. An echocardiogram revealed a ruptured aortic dissection. The woman died twenty minutes later. Her family filed a medical negligence lawsuit claiming the medical professionals failed to timely treat an aortic dissection and perform heart surgery. The defense argued that the woman’s medical history made her a high surgery risk. This case settled for $320,000. Malpractice settlements for aortic dissection often involve a compromise like this, which is why a trial is often the best option.
    • 2020 Georgia, $1,250,000 verdict: A 23-year-old man suffered chest pain. He presented to the emergency room. The man came under a P.A.’s care. He underwent a chest X-ray, an EKG, and bloodwork. The chest X-ray revealed a wide mediastinum. The man was discharged after being diagnosed with febrile illness and atypical chest pain. He died hours later. The man’s cause of death was an aortic dissection. His parents hired a malpractice lawyer and filed a lawsuit against the P.A. and her supervising physician. The suit claimed they failed to order additional tests, properly examine him, and determine his chest pain’s cause. The jury awarded the parents $1,250,000.
    • 2019 Maryland, $1,750,000 verdict: A 65-year-old man strained a muscle while working out. He presented to Osler Drive Emergency Physicians Associates. ODEPA’s staff discharged him without a proper diagnosis. The man suffered a fatal cardiac arrest. His family hired an aortic dissection malpractice lawyer who hired an expert witness to testify that the physician failed to order proper tests, monitor the man’s condition, transfer him to a hospital, and consult a cardiac specialist. The family argued in its malpractice lawsuit that an emergency procedure would have saved his life. A Baltimore City jury awarded $1,750,000.

  • 2018 New Jersey, $871,030 verdict: A 37-year-old woman came under a D.O. and P.A.’s care. She died from an aortic dissection. The woman’s family alleged negligence against the D.O. and P.A. They claimed they failed to timely diagnose the woman’s aortic dissection, order appropriate tests, and make a specialist referral. A jury awarded $871,030.
  • 2018 Michigan $3,990,000 verdict: A 47-year-old woman suffered radiating shoulder blade pain. She presented to the ER. The woman’s EKG and X-ray appeared normal. An ER physician diagnosed her with chest wall pain before discharging her. The following day, the woman presented to a family physician. She experienced elevated blood pressure. However, her test results appeared normal. The woman was diagnosed with a back strain. Two days later, she died at home. The autopsy report revealed a ruptured aortic dissection. The woman’s family alleged negligence against the hospital and family practice. They claimed they failed to diagnose an aortic dissection, appreciate her hypertension symptoms, and consult a specialist. A jury found the ER physician negligent but not the family physician and awarded $3,990,000.
  • 2018 New Jersey, $871,030 verdict: An adult female died at the age of 37 due to an undiagnosed aortic dissection while under the care and treatment of the defendants. The decedent’s estate claimed that the doctor failed to properly and timely diagnose and treat her conditions, leading to her ultimate death. The estate claimed the doctors did not provide the adequate standard of care, deviated from accepted procedures, and failed to refer her to a specialist for evaluation. The defendants denied liability. The jury determined the defendants to be 100 percent negligent and awarded the estate $871,030 for damages and funeral expenses.
  • 2017, Utah $2,940,250 verdict: This case was filed under the estate of a man who died from an aortic dissection. The patient visited a medical clinic, suffering from abdominal pain. He was seen by a physician’s assistant, who diagnosed him as suffering from constipation. After a week of continuous pain, the decedent returned to the clinic and met with a different physician. He was again misdiagnosed with abdominal pain and constipation. Again, no cardiac tests were administered. Four days after his second visit to the clinic, the decedent died of aortic dissection. The defendant was accused of breaching the standard of care by twice misdiagnosing the decedent and, failing to perform cardiac tests, such as a chest X-ray or an EKG, and failing to send him to the E.R., resulting in his death. The jury awarded $2,940,250 to the decedent’s widow.
  • 2017 Massachusetts, $4,000,000 settlement: In this case, the plaintiff arrived at the emergency room with complaints of sudden left-sided chest pain that extended into her left arm and left side of her jaw. She came under the care of the nurse practitioner and the physician. The plaintiff had an abnormal EKG. At that time, based upon examination and test results, the differential diagnoses included acute myocardial infarction, anxiety, coronary artery disease, chest wall pain, costochondritis, mitral valve prolapse, myocarditis, aortic dissection, unstable angina, pneumonia, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolus, and stable angina. No chest CT scan was ordered. Hours later, after being admitted, the plaintiff became diaphoretic and complained of burning in her legs with no feeling in her feet. A CT angiogram taken shortly after that showed a complete dissection of the plaintiff’s thoracic aorta. She was airlifted to a tertiary care facility, where she underwent surgery. She was deemed to have suffered spinal cord ischemia that resulted in paralysis. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to act quickly when an aortic dissection was a part of a differential diagnosis. As a result of the defendants’ negligence, the plaintiff suffered spinal cord ischemia, which resulted in the plaintiff’s paralysis. The defendants denied the allegations of negligence and contended that there was insufficient time to transfer the patient to another facility. The parties agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s claim for the sum of $4,000,000.
  • 2017 Massachusetts, $900,000 settlement: In this wrongful death matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant radiologist was negligent during an angioplasty procedure, which resulted in the patient suffering a fatal aortic dissection. The decedent came under the care of the defendant, an interventional radiologist, for the placement of a renal artery stent due to moderate right and left renal artery stenosis. The defendant needed to exchange a short sheath for a long sheath during the procedure. During this process, the defendant lost access to the lower pole artery and made several attempts to re-canalize the vessel, which were unsuccessful. The patient began to complain of severe chest and back pain, and it appeared that the patient suffered an aortic dissection. The procedure was stopped immediately, and an abdominal aortogram revealed compression along the left lateral wall of the inferior aorta. A later CTA scan showed rapidly progressing extensive aortic dissection and dissection of the thoracic aorta extending to the root. The defendant was uncertain how to proceed and consulted with other physicians before deciding to have the patient med-flighted to another facility. The patient coded shortly after that decision and died shortly after that. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging negligence. The defendant denied the allegations and disputed that there was a deviation from acceptable standards of care under the circumstances. The parties agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s claim for the sum of $900,000.
  • 2017, New Jersey $875,000 settlement: A man underwent a triple bypass procedure and was discharged without complications. Once he got home, the plaintiff contended he suffered an episode where he had sharp throat pain and briefly passed out. The patient was taken back to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. The defendant gave the patient a trans-thoracic cardiogram, which is an external procedure that only shows a small portion of the aorta. Afterward, the doctor discharged the man. Three days later, his aorta ruptures, he suffers from profound brain damage and dies. The estate of the decedent sued the doctor for failure to use a trans-esophageal echocardiogram or MRI to properly diagnose his aortic dissection and failure to analyze his results further when they showed “suspicious artifacts” on his scan. The defendant denied liability and claimed no evidence of an aortic dissection on the echocardiogram, so there was no reason to take further action. Both parties agreed to settle, and the plaintiff was given $875,000.
  • 2015, Ohio: $275,000 Settlement. A woman gets in a car accident and presents at OSU Wexner Medical Center complaining of chest pains following a car crash, home to wait for test results. The doctor saw the reports and thought she might be suffering an aortic dissection. He could not reach the woman, and she died. The defendants argued causation: she would have died anyway.
  • 2012, Kentucky: $1,300,000 verdict, less 30% comparative fault. This is a tragic case of a 49-year-old woman who died waiting to go into surgery. The lawsuit by the woman’s husband claimed a doctor made no effort to rule out a thoracic aortic dissection despite the evidence. Had the doctor ordered a CT scan, he would have seen the dissection.
  • 2011, Pennsylvania: $1,900,000 verdict. Wrongful death case involving a 31-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with intense chest pain. He was treated and released and died three days later.
  • 2011, Massachusetts: $1,750,000 settlement. This lawsuit involved the tragic death of a 24-year-old man. His family hired a malpractice lawyer who brought a claim against the emergency room doctor for failure to diagnose and the radiologist who did not review all of the MRI films that showed the aortic dissection.
  • 2007, Maryland: $500,000 settlement. Wrongful death and survival claim involving a 56-year-old man who presented to the emergency room hypertensive with complaints of near syncope, diaphoresis, and back pain. A transesophageal echocardiogram test that confirmed the aortic dissection was not performed until the next day. At that point, the man was too far along, and he died as his doctors planned emergency surgery.

Getting an Aortic Dissection Malpractice Lawyer in Maryland


Aortic aneurysms and aortic dissections can usually be treated when correctly diagnosed. But they are frequently missed by emergency room and primary care doctors and, too often, become the subject of a wrongful death medical malpractice claim. If you think you have a potential wrongful death malpractice claim for someone you loved because a doctor misdiagnosed an aortic dissection, call 800-553-8082 to discuss your potential case or get a free no-obligation case evaluation.

Recent Aortic Dissection Medical Literature

In aortic dissection malpractice lawsuits,  the medical literature is often the battlefield in the case.  Below are some of the most recent literature on aortic dissections.
  • Pedersen, M. W., et al (2023). “Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Acute Aortic Dissection: A Nationwide Registry Study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery,” 116(6), 1177–1184.  This study looked at patients who were diagnosed with acute aortic dissection (a serious condition where there is a tear in the wall of the aorta, the major artery coming from the heart) from 2006 to 2015. The researchers wanted to understand more about who gets this condition and how they do it after it is diagnosed. They found 1,157 patients with Type A aortic dissection (which occurs in the part of the aorta coming directly from the heart) and 556 patients with Type B (which happens in the part of the aorta further down the chest or abdomen). Most of these patients were men around 66 to 70 years old.  For those with Type A, 74% had surgery, and the rest didn’t. In Type B, only 22% had surgery or a similar procedure. They noticed that during their hospital stay, 27% of Type A patients died (with a lower death rate in those who had surgery), and 16% of Type B patients died.  For patients who left the hospital alive, those with Type A generally lived longer than those with Type B. They also looked at how long patients lived after leaving the hospital: 1 and 3 years later. Those who had surgery for Type A had better survival rates than those who didn’t. For Type B, the survival rates were roughly the same whether they had surgery/endovascular treatment or were managed without these procedures.  In conclusion, this study found that the death rates for both types of aortic dissection were higher than what other specialized centers have reported. Type A had a higher death rate at the beginning, but once patients were discharged, Type B patients had a higher death rate.
  • Braverman, Alan C., et al. “Clinical features and outcomes of pregnancy-related acute aortic dissection.” JAMA Cardiology 6.1 (2021): 58-66. (This study examined pregnancy-related aortic dissection’s clinical characteristics, imaging features, and outcomes. The researchers found that more than half of onset aortic dissections were detected during the pregnancy. They also found that dilated aortas were associated with Type A aortic dissections, not Type B. The researchers concluded that recognizing pregnancy-related aortic dissection’s underlying risks and conditions could improve the management of aortopathic women.)
  • Czerny, Martin, et al. “Prediction of mortality rate in acute type A dissection: the German Registry for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection score.” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 58.4 (2020): 700-706. (This study looked at a scoring system’s effectiveness in determining the mortality rate of individuals who underwent Type A aortic dissection surgeries. The researchers enrolled over 2,500 patients in this program. They found that the scoring system was a practical and simple tool to predict the 30-day mortality rate for individuals undergoing Type A aortic dissection surgeries. The researchers recommended its widespread use.)
  • Chen, Shao-Wei, et al. “Association of family history with incidence and outcomes of aortic dissection.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 76.10 (2020): 1181-1192. (This study examined whether a family history of aortic dissections increased the risk factor for this condition. The researchers used Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database. They found that aortic dissection’s heritability was 57 percent for genetic factors. The researchers concluded that one’s family history of aortic dissections increased their risk for the condition.)
  • Gopalakrishnan, Chandrasekar, et al. “Association of fluoroquinolones with the risk of aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.” JAMA Internal Medicine. 180.12 (2020): 1596-1605. (This study looked at whether fluoroquinolone increased the aortic dissection or aneurysm risk. The researchers looked at pneumonia and urinary tract infection patients who took either fluoroquinolones or azithromycin. They found that pneumonia patients who took fluoroquinolones were slightly more at risk for aortic dissections or aneurysms than those who took azithromycin. However, the rates were insignificant for both drugs. The researchers also found no significant risk for aortic dissections or aneurysms in UTI patients who took either drug. They concluded that the benefits of fluoroquinolone outweigh the small aortic aneurysms or dissection risks.)
  • Palaniappan, Ashwin, et al. “Medical malpractice litigations involving aortic dissection.” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2020). (This study looked at the trends involving aortic dissection medical malpractice cases. The researchers found that 57 percent of these cases yielded defense verdicts, 20 percent yielded plaintiff verdicts, and 23 percent yielded settlements. They also found that plaintiff mortality yielded lower average plaintiff awards and settlements. Most of these cases were filed in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Defense verdicts primarily involved failure to test, refer, consult, and prevent a stroke, while plaintiff verdicts involved failure to diagnose.)
Client Reviews
They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron
Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson
Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens
The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger
I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie Lauer
The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen
The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa
Contact Information