HYPOTHETICAL FACTS:

The following facts take place in Healthcare, a fictional jurisdiction within the United States:

Mr. X had substantial pain in his left knee area and swelling of his left calf for two weeks when he called his regular family practice physician's office for an appointment. He was seen by the physician (with whom he had a longstanding patient/physician relationship) a week later, and the physician indicated she suspected a possible blood clot in Mr. X's left calf and told him to go immediately to the emergency department of nearby Holy Smokes Hospital for an ultrasound test of his calf. Holy Smokes was accredited by the Joint Commission and advertised in local media, "Come to our Emergency Department, because we are the best in the region." At Holy Smokes, the ultrasound was conducted and read as negative for a blood clot by a radiologist employed by Holy Smokes. Mr. X was examined by an Advanced Nurse Practitioner, who told him he was fine and to take aspirin as necessary for the pain.

Another two weeks passed without any improvement in Mr. X's pain. He returned to his family practice physician, who now referred him to a vascular surgeon, Dr. Y, for evaluation of possible circulatory problems in his legs. When Mr. X arrived a week later for his scheduled appointment with Dr. Y, it was discovered that the family practice physician's office had sent Mr. X's electronic medical records to a different physician (a dermatologist) in the area with the same last name as Dr. Y. Mr. X had to reschedule his appointment with the correct Dr. Y (who submitted a charge for an office visit for the original appointment) for two weeks later. At that appointment, Dr. Y examined Mr. X, reviewed his medical records, and told him that he did not have a circulatory problem, and therefore that he should not come back to see Dr. Y again.

Mr. X's pain (and associated difficulty in walking and other movement) continued for two more weeks until he could get an appointment with his family practice physician. At that appointment, Mr. X insisted, "C'mon, it's got to be something with the knee." The family physician then referred Mr. X to an orthopedic surgeon and told Mr. X to "stay off" the knee. The earliest appointment Mr. X could obtain with the orthopedic surgeon was a month later. During that interval, Mr. X continued to walk a great deal in his daily life and for exercise (priding himself on "playing through the pain.") The orthopedic surgeon examined the patient and radiologic tests he conducted in the office and diagnosed Mr. X with a torn meniscus (part of the cartilage of the knee), which can occur spontaneously for no specific reason. During that office visit, the orthopedic surgeon gave Mr. X a steroid shot, saying only, "This will make you feel better" and extracted some fluid from the knee with a needle.

Following the visit and procedures with the orthopedic surgeon, Mr. X felt nauseous and very tired for several days, during which he missed important time at work. Within a week or so, however, he felt much better and over the next several weeks the pain in his knee gradually subsided and he was able to engage in his usual activities (including sexual relations with his spouse, which had become infrequent during his painful period) with only very sporadic and minimal pain in his knee.

Although he is able to manage with his current condition, Mr. X is not happy with the way that this scenario unfolded. He comes to the law firm at which you are employed to explore possible legal action(s) out of this fact pattern.

QUESTION: Keeping in mind limited firm human and financial resources, advise the senior partner about whether the firm ought to undertake representation of Mr. X. Specify what additional factually information you would want to find out to formulate your advice, and why you would want that information.

PLEASE CITE ALL WORKS.