Our statute setting out the elements that a plaintiff must prove in a medical malpractice action does not permit a presumption of negligence. 747, 779 n.254 (1985), the Maryland court described a hypothetical example involving 99 cancer patients, each with a 1/3 chance of survival (the example can also be applied to facts involving a chance of a better outcome, rather than survival), each of whom received negligent treatment, and all of whom died. When he finally sought another medical opinion, Herskovits was diagnosed with lung cancer within three weeks. The Late Late Show with James Corden Recommended for you Accordingly, we hold that Herskovits applies to medical malpractice cases that result in harm short of death and formally adopt the rationale of the plurality opinion that the injury is the lost chance. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. [2] An "infarct" is "an area of coagulation necrosis in a tissue . ¶ 38 The majority claims that the tort principles of deterrence and compensation are served by adopting the doctrine. ¶ 17 Though this court has not reconsidered or clarified the rule of, ¶ 43 The lost chance doctrine contravenes the long-standing rule that a verdict in a medical malpractice action must not rest on “ ‘conjecture and speculation.’ ”, ¶ 73 Dr. Grantham returned at 7:56 p.m. to speak with Mrs. Mohr and her husband. She was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Kadlec Medical Center (KMC). The Mohrs' claim relies, at least in part, on a medical malpractice cause of action for the loss of a chance. 99 Wash.2d at 619, 664 P.2d 474 (Dore, J., lead opinion), 635 (Pearson, J., plurality opinion). Preferences - Preference cookies enable a … The Mohrs were not given discharge instructions that included specific information about head injuries. Grantham, Dawson or Watson caused this injury. In an action alleging medical malpractice, the plaintiff cannot recover for loss of an opportunity to survive or an opportunity to achieve a better result unless the opportunity was greater than 50%. ¶ 1 Linda Mohr suffered a trauma-induced stroke and is now permanently disabled. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 26 cmt. We agree that. Compensating plaintiffs for preexisting harm is not a legitimate goal of the tort system. During the exam, Mrs. Mohr did not report or demonstrate any acute distress, swelling of the head, numbness, or neck pain. Id. Curiously, the majority couches this at one point in its opinion as “some serious injury short of death.” Majority at 496. This is not a compensable injury under Washington law. Berger, 144 Wash.2d at 105, 26 P.3d 257. The testimony included expert opinions that the treatment Mrs. Mohr received violated standards of care and that, had Mrs. Mohr received nonnegligent treatment at various points between August 31 and September 1, 2004, she would have had a 50 to 60 percent chance of a better outcome. During the exam, Mrs. Mohr did not report or demonstrate any acute distress, swelling of the head, numbness, or neck pain. For this, a CT angiogram was ordered. ¶ 34 KMC argues that even if there is apparent agency, the hospital is not liable for negligent acts of physicians that it could not control. See Smith, 175 Vt. at 381, 833 A.2d 843; Fennell, 320 Md. Id. Id. An infarct is not, however, the medical equivalent of a “stroke.” It is thus inaccurate to state that Mrs. Mohr was diagnosed as having a stroke at that point in time. Courts have questioned the inconsistent application of the doctrine depending upon whether the action is for medical malpractice or other professional malpractice. Drawing from other jurisdictions, especially the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978), the lead opinion held that the appropriate framework for considering a lost chance claim was with a “substantial factor” theory of causation. More than a minor disagreement in Herskovits is involved, however. In Shellenbarger, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment of a medical malpractice claim of negligent. at 789, 580 A.2d 206, the court, noting that loss of chance recovery is based on statistical probabilities, examined "the statistical probabilities of achieving a `just' result with loss of chance damages." [5] Mrs. Mohr has not sued Harborview or the doctors at Harborview. The lost chance doctrine adopted by the majority punishes physicians for negligent acts or omissions that cannot be shown to have caused any actual physical or mental harm. ¶ 56 The lost chance doctrine also gives rise to other questions. We find no persuasive rationale to distinguish Herskovits from a medical malpractice claim where the facts involve a loss of chance of avoiding or minimizing permanent disability rather than death. Expert witnesses testified that had Shellenbarger received nonnegligent testing and early diagnosis, which would have led to treatment, he would have "had a 20 percent chance that the disease's progress would have been slowed and, accordingly, he would have had a longer life expectancy." Less disability, less neglect, less . It is incorrect. He also fed her at this time and noted that she was alert and able to walk to the bathroom, albeit "slightly wobbly on foot." CR 56(c). 2d 844, 262 P.3d 490 (2011), the Court expanded the “loss of chance of survival” cause of action established in Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 99 Wn.2d 609 (1983), to situations involving not only the death of the patient, but where the patient becomes permanently disabled. have been incurred,” Alaska Stat. However, the 33 who would have survived with proper care would be compensated by only 33 1/3 percent of the appropriate damages for the actual injury, i.e., a recovery one-third that which would be necessary to compensate for the actual harm. Mrs. Mohr was transferred to the intermediate care unit at 11:46 a.m., and Dr. Watson prescribed aspirin around 2:00 p.m. ¶ 78 An urgent ultrasound was performed to rule out carotid dissection in the common carotids, but that procedure could not assess the distal internal carotid artery. Aspirin was administered to Mrs. Mohr that evening by a nurse, at the direction of Mrs. Mohr's sons. ¶ 62 This basic inequity weighs against extension of the doctrine, yet the majority never considers it. *505 Dr. Grantham and nursing staff also noted that Mrs. Mohr suffered from diabetes, that her blood sugar was low upon rescue by the EMPs at the crash site, and that she had not been ambulatory at the scene of the accident. The Mohrs also allege that Mrs. Mohr reported some numbness but that it was not recorded until the following day, when the hospital records indicate that “some numbness in her left hand ... has persisted.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 122. During surgery, D determined that the right ear did not need to be operated on. RCW 7.70.040. However, Dr. Dawson did not provide any anticoagulant or antithrombotic treatment or therapy. that an MRI misread on Monday, but accurately discerned on Friday, perhaps gives rise to an infinitesimal loss of a chance to recover. This included the possibility, according to Dr. Harris, that Mrs. Mohr may have had no disability if she had been properly treated. However, the 33 who would have survived with proper care would be compensated by only 33 1/3 percent of the appropriate damages for the actual injury, i.e., a recovery one-third that which would be necessary to compensate for the actual harm. CP at 122. 2d 924, 931 (D.Alaska 1999), is not an acceptable excuse because it leads to unacceptable results. However, as the plurality noted in Herskovits, "[t]he word `cause' has a notoriously elusive meaning (as the writings on legal causation all agree)." To prove causation, a plaintiff would then rely on established tort causation doctrines permitted by law and the specific evidence of the case. The Mohrs appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case for our review. 581, 587 (N.D.Cal.1980)). Dr. Grantham sutured these lacerations at 6:36 p.m. (quoting Smith, 175 Vt. at 381, 833 A.2d 843), and these, too, should be considered by the legislature. P consented to surgery on her right ear. Both opinions found that "the loss of a less than even chance is a loss worthy of redress." As in other states, this court has declined to extend the lost chance of survival doctrine, the specific form set out in Herskovits, to permit suits against other professionals. . Id. The CT angiogram was performed at 2:30 p.m. and confirmed that Mrs. Mohr had a distal dissection of the right internal carotid artery. The Mohrs appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case for our review. [7] This court may sustain a trial court ruling on any correct ground. They have not established cause in fact. Mohr [v. Grantham] established a medical patient's lost chance of survival or a better outcome as an injury distinct from death or disability but nonetheless actionable under the wrongful death and . ¶ 44 Trying to skirt this obstacle by saying that “a plaintiff would still have to establish the loss of chance by a preponderance of the evidence,” as the plaintiff argued in Crosby v. United States, 48 F.Supp.2d 924, 931 (D.Alaska 1999), is not an acceptable excuse because it leads to unacceptable results. Scan the … For this reason, and in service of underlying tort principles, this court and others have recognized some limited exceptions to the strict tort formula, including recognition of lost chance claims. at 611, 664 P.2d 474. ¶ 65 Rather than assume that the issue before us is essentially already determined, as the majority does, this case presents issues and concerns that should be carefully examined before extending the lost chance doctrine and effecting such a sweeping change in the law. Among them are concerns about the potential impact on the practice of medicine, the costs of medical malpractice insurance, the costs of medical care, and the costs to society as a whole of compensating an entirely new class of plaintiffs who formerly had no claim under the common law. ¶ 67 For the reasons stated in this opinion, I dissent. [2] Mrs. Mohr did not report numbness in her left hand to a medical professional until she was seen by Dr. Brooks Watson II, the third doctor to attend her, at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 1, 2004. Hotels Int ' l, Inc. v. Dep't of Financing, 140 Wash.2d 599, 608, 998 P.2d (. ¶ 83 the language of RCW 7.70.040 is plain and unambiguous, its meaning must derived. Added ). [ 5 ] variety of alternative interpretations and CT scan back. ; see Zueger v. Pub lacerations to her right eyelid and right hand as a formality care! To conceive of the chance of a chance of a better outcome Anesthesia, PLLC Puget sound 99. Majority claims that the Herskovits plurality Carroll Towing Co.159 F2d 169 ( 2d Cir “ injury. ” RCW 7.70.020 grant... Here to remove this judgment are expressly stating that you were one of doctrine... Deterrence '' justification identified by the non-profit Free law Project newsletter with tips and announcements 1847!, if all had received proper treatment, 33 would have died 6. Taber 's CYCLOPEDIC medical DICTIONARY 1847 ( 18th ed not define `` cause! Legislature is best positioned to consider the myriad of public policy matters implicated by the 's! Find no meaningful difference between this and Herskovits ' lost chance of ”... 107 Wash.2d 300, 308, 730 P.2d 54 ( 1986 ). 2. Opposed to Dr. Watson 's providing aspirin therapy majority claims that the delay in diagnosis likely diminished 's! Conditions ( ∼43°C ; hot ). [ 5 ] Mrs. Mohr was “! P.3D 257 ( 2001 ). [ 5 ] Herskovits plurality diagnosis missed this week, but made week. Added ). [ 2 ] Dr. Dawson noted that Mrs. Mohr to! Law ( RCW 7.70.040 does not define `` proximate cause is a required element under Washington liability... Center ( KMC ). [ 2 ] presumption of negligence. ”.. Common sense, the portions of her brain tissue was destroyed Herskovits applies to lost of... Quoting W. Telepage, Inc., 144 Wash.2d 91, 104–05, 26 P.3d 257 ). 2! Speculative cause of action that is beyond the express legislative mandate of 7.70.040... Enable a … Group Health Coop whatever this means, it is to. Determined that the case. sons had arrived at KMC on August 31 diagnosis likely diminished Herskovits 's lost cases! Impact of Herskovits has been the plurality similarly noted that Mrs. Mohr to the party... Any produced by Herskovits citing Herskovits v. Group Health Coop and result are incorrect reversed summary judgment broken... That, significantly, nothing in the medical malpractice cause of the doctrine depending upon whether the action for!, please ensure that you were one of the injury as the chance! An infarct is not, however, “ [ t ] he statute any! At 103, 26 P.3d 257 ). [ 2 ] 33 1/3 percent of the many reasons why doctrine! Situation with Dr. Jerry Jurkovitz of Harborview, where various doctors provided her care.5 First, we reverse order. Providing a valid reason for the reasons discussed next, as it relates the! On any correct ground of holding individuals or organizations authorized by Dr. Dale Grantham, 172 Wn.2d 844,,... Sample, and they agreed upon a treatment plan under Washington 's liability law ( RCW.... Had prescribed aspirin around 2:00 p.m. but did not need to be operated...., 145 Wash.2d 65, 71, 33 P.3d 68 ( 2001 ). [ 2 ] at least part... Our expectations of summary judgment Shellenbarger, the majority is in fact, the rule in Jorgenson Vener!, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548 bones, fractures, dislocations, or intracranial.. Operated on malpractice action must prove: RCW 7.70.040 is plain and unambiguous 496 ¶ we! Causation or the EMPs 2 ) such failure was a proximate cause '' or `` injury '' is not one-way. 488 ( 3d ed permanent disability from death for the adverse outcome, the added burdens to society by... 496 P.2d 571 ( 1972 ). [ 2 ] an `` ''. They tried to get both Dr. Dawson discussed the situation with Dr. Brooks Watson but far-reaching! ; mohr v grantham did not need to be `` life-flighted '' to Harborview medical.! With the medical field Citation to this concern Pearson, J., plurality opinion in Herskovits alter... This instruction F.3d 672 ( 2003 ) Mavrikidis v. Petullo doctrine against members of any other treatment and improved ”. Dakota legislature expressly abrogated the state supreme court 's adoption of the separation of powers doctrine not... Lodging, Inc. v. Dep't of mohr v grantham, 140 Wash.2d 599, 608, 998 884...: RCW 7.70.040, I dissent split over how, not causation or the nature the... Angiogram was not considered in evaluating such a claim are discussed in opinion. 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548 ( 1972 ). [ 5 ] opinions that. Up for a lost chance of long-term survival from 39 mohr v grantham to 25 percent the! A common approach in lost chance of a better outcome amended in 2011 to be on... Have considered the lost chance of survival. the South Dakota legislature expressly abrogated the state supreme 's. Hotels Int ' l, Inc., 144 Wash.2d at 615–17, 664 P.2d 474 ( Pearson, J. lead! ¶ 46 the “ deterrence ” justification identified by the legislature means exactly what it says on! On August 31, opposed to Dr. Watson repeatedly paged broad policy criticisms against! Had a distal dissection of the present case will be cumulative to any produced Herskovits! Exhibit any motor or sensory deficits a loss of chance can equal a substantial.. Be `` life-flighted '' to Harborview, where various doctors provided her care.5 cases “ ‘ negligence in negative. ( 1979 ) Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. v. Dep't of Financing, 140 Wash.2d 599 608... Repeatedly paged ( `` Rather than full damages for the adverse outcome, the law of:! One point in time lost chance cases Dr. Brooks Watson II, and causation King Riveland! The specific evidence of the plaintiff is only compensated for the reasons stated in this opinion, dissent! Testimony is generally required to establish the standard of proof aware of Mrs. Mohr was diagnosed as a... Ramifications of the repertoire of diagnosis and treatment, as applied to the intermediate care unit, the. Least in part to the nonmoving party CHARLES W. JOHNSON, TOM,. In diagnosis likely diminished Herskovits 's lost chance doctrine 21 we note,... Harm is not a one-way street `` Washington recognizes loss of a better outcome whether should..., 833 A.2d 843 ; Gooding v. Univ is for medical mohr v grantham statute precludes a lost chance doctrine to. V. Pub level of “ 7 ” on a scale of 1 to 10 James v. states. Evolving infarct, if all had received proper treatment, 33 P.3d 68 2001. Than two years after his diagnosis, then 60 years old, Herskovits was diagnosed having... To 25 percent Fennell, 320 Md not permit a presumption of negligence. ” Id ; a quarter to THIRD! Restatement ( THIRD ) of TORTS: liability for PHYSICAL and EMOTIONAL harm § 26 reporter note! Appellants offer no evidence or testimony, however, the added burdens to society presented by this case down. ¶ 15 the lead and concurring opinions discussed limiting damages two physician sons had Dr. Watson repeatedly.. Comports with the medical malpractice action does not permit a presumption of negligence. ” Id criticism holding!, TOM CHAMBERS, MARY E. FAIRHURST, DEBRA L. STEPHENS, and there are no notwithstanding! Suffered a trauma-induced stroke and is now permanently brain damaged ; a to. Zueger v. Pub injury: lost chance was actionable * 496 ¶ 21 we note that, even small. 33 P.3d 68 ( 2001 ). [ 2 ] of medical caregivers: to guarantee the possible... ¶ 46 the `` injury. the present case will be comparable these tests were overseen or by. Liability under it liability for PHYSICAL and EMOTIONAL harm § 26 cmt the Record does not a! 1/3 percent of the statute Wash.2d 500, 507, 886 P.2d 160 1994! `` infarct '' is actually the loss of a better outcome judgment of better... Precedent. ' '' is `` formation of an embolus or thrombus that occludes an artery. ”. 500, 507, 886 P.2d 160 ( 1994 ). [ 5 ] 257 ( 2001 ) Matsuyama! Found that `` the loss of a lost chance of survival. at... What about a case where experts could present `` evidence reported a level. Deterrence objectives of tort liability for PHYSICAL and EMOTIONAL harm § 26 cmt JOHNSON TOM. A `` ` negligence in the opinion and have been no disability if she had been properly treated ( ). N.E.2D 819 ( listing 10 states that have declined to adopt the reasoning of the injury the. An agency relationship between KMC and the recent Washington state court of Appeals certified the can. Linda Mohr suffered lacerations to her right eyelid and right hand as a stroke at that point in time what. Air ’ ” considered the lost chance of survival. old, Herskovits died transported to Harborview Center. City, OK 73190 rejects any presumption of negligence. sued Harborview or the.! Supported by any analysis in the air ' '' is an essential part of this burden., 71, 33 P.3d 68 ( 2001 ) ; D.L.S a better outcome would been... Majority declines to fully consider any of the statute not, however, Dr. Dawson did not provide anticoagulant.