Why Don’t Doctors Order Tests to Check For Issues?
Gregg Hollander | November 16, 2025 | Uncategorized
One of the most common frustrations we hear from clients is “Why don’t doctors order tests to check for issues? They never ordered the test. What would it have hurt?”
It is a fair question. Many malpractice cases start with a simple failure to order imaging or labs that were readily available and could have changed everything.
In depositions, I have asked defendant doctors this question many times. The answers are remarkably consistent:
- “The exam was benign.”
- “Based on my evaluation, advanced imaging was not necessary.”
- “The patient did not have the classic symptoms.”
You almost never hear, “The test was too expensive,” or “The patient did not have insurance.” No one wants to admit that. The documented justification is almost always that the test was not required by the standard of care.
Legally, the bare minimum is not the only thing that matters. The question is whether a reasonably careful physician in that situation should have ordered the test, especially when the downside risk of missing a condition is enormous and the test is relatively easy.
What Is a Real Life Example of Medical Negligence?
In many malpractice cases, the story follows a similar pattern:
- The patient’s complaints and presentation made the condition reasonably foreseeable
- A specific test was the accepted “gold standard” or an obvious next step
- A reasonably careful provider would have ordered it
- The delay in ordering that test changed the outcome
In other words, it is not enough that a test could have been done. It must be one that should have been done.
“Do No Harm” And Going Beyond The Minimum
Doctors sometimes hide behind the phrase “standard of care” as if meeting the minimum standard excuses everything. In a courtroom, that phrase has real meaning, but it does not give a free pass to avoid reasonable precaution.
The first rule of patient care is to do no harm. If a simple, noninvasive test can provide crucial diagnostic information and help avoid catastrophic injury, then “we did not think it was necessary” becomes a weak defense.
