You see this a lot with "diagnoses of exclusion," sadly. In the absence of specific tests, you can only reach certain diagnostic conclusions by ruling out other stuff first, but (particularly in American healthcare) we often don't perform the rigorous well-it's-definitely-not-<x> workup first.
Or, depending on the circumstances, people don't understand that certain conditions are diagnoses of exclusion to begin with and jump to conclusions, like assuming they have IBS when they actually have Crohn's. (Ask me how I know, lol.)
There's the recent rise of "Chronic Lyme Disease," which many physicians have noted is a dubious diagnosis at best, but it seems clear that most of those people are ill—just with something else. And that "something else" could be a positively-identifiable condition that they haven't been tested for yet, or it could be a legitimate diagnosis of exclusion, like ME/CFS.
The problem, in either case, is actually testing people for all those other things first.