>They were understandably terrified, but neurologists who read the radiology report seemed unconcerned, explaining that such masses were common among women, and suggested Scott have it checked again in a year.
Yet at the end of the article they say
>if she had waited six months, she would have had severe, and possibly permanent, degradation of her sight.
I know this sounds insane, but menigiomas (which I'd guess is what the neurologist suspected it was) are almost always benign and shockingly common - many post-mortems find these guys just kind of hanging out in/around the brain. The corollary is that any kind of cranial surgery has enormous risks. Point being, if a doctor sees what appears to be a (surprisingly) common event on a chart, they're not going to necessarily recommend further action other than observation UNLESS there's a change to the patient (which, as kitbrennan pointed out, almost certainly accompanied the "get it checked again in a year").
Obviously that 'may' have been a critical delay, and therefore Scott and her husband were certainly right in hindsight to be proactive about Scott's health.
I know this first hand. Doctors, very smart, just don't know everything. You really have to bone up on whatever is ailing you and really shop the knowledge base that is out there.