A Fulton County jury found no liability on the part of an oncologist accused of failing to follow up on medical tests indicating a patient may have experienced a resurgence of cancer.

The case is one of two springing from the same set of facts with parallel litigation pending in DeKalb County against the surgeons who ordered the tests for plaintiff Helen Ross-Stubblefield.

"That's one thing that made this case interesting, and it's going to make the other case very interesting," said lead defense attorney Jonathan Peters of Peters & Monyak, whose firm is not involved in the DeKalb litigation.

Peters had considered seeking to have the defendant doctors in the other litigation added as nonparty defendants, "but I made the decision not to get into that at trial so it wouldn't impact our case."

Those doctors were not called to testify, said Peters, who co-counseled with firm colleague V. Michelle Stock.

Peters submitted a certified offer to settle the case more than a year ago for $20,000, so he will seek attorney fees under Georgia's offer of judgment statute from the date of the rejected offer.

The plaintiffs, patient Helen Ross-Stubblefield and her husband, are represented by Jennifer Kurle and Steve Justus of Decatur's KurleLaw. In an email, Kurle said they would appeal the verdict.

"I'm not surprised about that," said Peters. "It was a pretty tough pill to swallow. They really felt they had a strong case."

According to Peters and court filings, Ross-Stubblefield, now 62, had undergone treatment for breast cancer, including chemotherapy, radiation and a single-breast mastectomy. In May 2012, there was no evidence of any remaining cancer.

In September 2013, she was considering reconstructive surgery, and her surgeons ordered a PET/CT scan and MRI.

Two radiologists found "concerning" evidence that a metastatic nodule might be present and recommended follow-up tests.

Ross-Stubblefield went to see her chemotherapy providers at Georgia Cancer Specialists, where she was examined by physician assistant Cassie Burt and whose report was signed off on by oncologist Laura Weakland.

The complaint said only the PET scan was reviewed by Burt and Weakland, who "neither received nor reviewed" the MRI results.

The defendants recorded that the tests showed no evidence of disease, it said.

Despite the imaging results, "Weakland and Burt chose not to notify Mrs. Ross-Stubblefield that the studies revealed findings suggestive of metastatic disease and chose not to order additional diagnostic testing to rule out the presence of metastatic disease, because they had not ordered the original imaging studies," the complaint said.

The defendants also "elected not to collaborate" with Ross-Stubblefield's breast surgeons who had ordered the scans, the plaintiffs account said.

For about 20 months, the defendants' records indicate that there was no cancer present, "in direct contradiction to the radiology reports that were in their possession," the plaintiffs' account said.

The defense argued that, contrary to Ross-Stubblefield's account, her breast surgeon Rogsbert Phillips repeatedly tried to contact her after performing the tests to tell her about the results.

"Ross-Stubblefield has denied this contention and instead has testified that Dr. Phillips informed her that her test results were normal," the defense portion of the pretrial order said.

Her physical examinations at Georgia Cancer Specialists were consistent with a finding of no evidence of cancer, the defense filing said, and Ross-Stubblefield "repeatedly informed Dr. Weakland and PA Burt that she was continuing to follow up with other medical providers" and that her PET/CT and MRI results were normal and did require further work-up.

In May 2015 Ross-Stubblefield underwent MRI and PET/CT scans, which revealed a recurrence of the malignancy and which required "very aggressive" surgery that included removal of portions of her sternum and ribs, Peters said.

"A big issue in this case was that, had it been discovered earlier, she would have needed a much less aggressive treatment," Peters said.

Ross-Stubblefield was declared cancer-free but has recently been diagnosed with another cancerous nodule, he said.

She and her husband first sued Phillips and the other surgeon. Those defendants filed a notice of nonparty fault against Weakland and Burt, "and based on that finding the plaintiff felt she needed to sue us," said Peters. "They sued us in a separate action and asked that the cases be consolidated. We didn't agree, so the cases went along in parallel fashion."

Peters said there were discussions about mediating the claims against his clients, but the plaintiffs insisted that the first defense offer had to be $750,000.

"We declined that, and there were no other demands other than for the policy limits," he said.

During a weeklong trial before State Court Judge Myra Dixon, the plaintiffs contended that Weakland and Burt should have followed up on the evidence of possible cancer in the scans Ross-Stubblefield's surgeons had ordered.

"The plaintffs' contention is that she had a meeting with Dr. Phillips and he told her the scans were OK and that's why she told us and the radiation oncologist and plastic surgeon they were  OK," he said.

"Their whole case was about what responsibility Dr. Weakland had to follow up on these equivocal scans," he said. "Our testimony was pretty consistent that the person ordering the test had that responsibility."

"About half of our case was about Dr. Phillips' care and inaction. I just said, 'That's for another day and another jury, but regardless the outcome would be the same for us.'"

Peters said key testimony was provided by his expert, Orlando oncologist David Malthrop Jr., and by Weakland, "who came across as a very caring, skilled oncologist."

Even Ross-Stubblefield testified that "she was mad because she felt Weakland had withheld information but thought she was a very thorough and caring doctor," Peters said.

At the close of evidence, Dixon granted a defense motion for a directed verdict dismissing Burt, and the verdict form only named Weakland and Georgia Cancer Specialists as defendants.

In closing, Kurle asked the jury to award $15.5 million in damages.

After nearly four hours of deliberations, the jury found for the defense on Oct. 11.

In posttrial conversation, Peters said the jurors "all acknowledged that the controversy with Dr. Phillips was a significant issue but accepted our version that, if there was a responsibility, it was not with us."

Ross-Stubblefield was an impressive plaintiff with a tragic story, Peters said, and her lawyers "put up a very aggressive presentation; it just didn't resonate with them."