Probably too soon to tell whether it would be worth it to sue, but if you are unsure, you should consult with a NY med/mal attorney. Many attorneys offer free consults and will obtain an expert medical opinion at no up-front cost to you, which will help answer your ultimate question of whether it is worth it to sue.
Some general points. To prove med/mal, you must prove negligence, causation, and damages. Regarding negligence, you will need to prove that doctor 1 should reasonably have diagnosed an obstruction. Regarding causation, you will need to prove that doctor 1's failure to diagnose an obstruction resulted in significant harm. In other words, you will need to prove what procedures and long lasting effects would have been avoided if doctor 1 had diagnosed obstruction. Regarding damages, you will need to prove just that. You write, for example, that kidneys "could" have been irrevocably damaged. Near damages are not damages. You will need to prove actual harm.
I hope this helps.
I am an attorney licensed to practice in Massachusetts, and only in Massachusetts. This post is intended only as a general discussion of legal principles. This post is not intended to solicit or provide legal services, nor is it intended to create and attorney-client relationship. You should not rely on any information posted on this site regarding your specific situation until you have consulted with a qualified attorney. Under rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and other rules, this communication may be considered advertising.
I would just like to add that in addition to the fine answer
provided you should understand that
even if there is a medical malpractice
case you are not able to recover damages
for "potential" injuries, just injuries that actually
do occur. Good luck with a speedy recovery.
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.