The court in Hicks also drew an analogy to another federal case which imposed liability on a ship's master for failing to attempt to rescue a seaman who had fallen overboard. In re RIDDELL 157 P.3d 888 (2007) CASE BRIEF. 90 Yale L.J. I would interpret the wrongful death statute, RCW 4.20.010, to apply to cases of this type. If the tumor had been a stage 1 tumor in December 1974, decedent's statistical chance of surviving 5 years was 39 percent. The necessary proximate cause will be established if the jury finds such cause. It may be difficult to obtain significant damages in these cases, even though liability can be established. The court continues: It is clear that Hamil, like Hicks and McBride, stands for no more than a rejection of a reasonable certainty standard of proof, and an acceptance of a reasonable probability standard. Thus, the delay in diagnosis may have reduced the chance of a 5-year survival by 14 percent. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 99 Wash.2d 609, 664 P.2d 474 (1983) (plurality opinion). Dr. Ostrow suspected that Mr. Herskovits had lung cancer, and recommended a medical procedure be undertaken to confirm his suspicions. To summarize, in Hicks v. United States the decedent was deprived of a probability of survival; in Jeanes v. Milner the decedent's chance of survival was reduced from 35 percent to 24 percent; in O'Brien v. Stover, the decedent's 30 percent chance of survival was reduced by an indeterminate amount; in McBride v. United States the decedent was deprived of the probability of survival; in Kallenberg v. Beth Israel Hosp. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Other courts have awarded the patient compensation for her lost chance to recover. 497 (1968). JUR. This was a malpractice action brought by the mother of a 13-year-old boy who died of throat cancer. Further, the judge decided that the cancer was indeed present in November 1972, and could have been treated or resected before metastasis. The complaint alleged that Herskovits came to Group Health Hospital in 1974 with complaints of pain and coughing. The causation element of a Washington wrongful death action based on medical malpractice does not re... Herskovits died following a failure to diagnose his lung cancer by Group Health Cooperative. The Chester court then awarded damages of $45,988.10, including $36,741.10 for loss of earning power, $7,500 for the loss of guidance, etc., for his minor children, and $1,747 for funeral expenses. The court then cited Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) as authority to relax the degree of certitude normally required of plaintiff's evidence in order to make a case for the jury. Mr. Herskovits died of cancer on March 22, 1977, at the age of 60 years. The three cases where the chance of survival was greater than 50 percent (Hicks, McBride, and Hamil) are unexceptional in that they focus on the death of the decedent as the injury, and they require proximate cause to be shown beyond the balance of probabilities. Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 242, 272 N.E.2d 97 (1971); Hiser v. Randolph, 126 Ariz. 608, 617 P.2d 774 (Ct. App. McCormick, supra. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 99 Wn.2d 609, 664 P.2d 474 (1983) (plurality opinion), as support for the instruction. Therefore, I would hold that plaintiff has established a prima facie issue of proximate cause by producing testimony that defendant probably caused a substantial reduction in Mr. Herskovits' chance of survival. Hamil, at 269. The combination of the loss of a loved one to cancer and a doctor's negligence in diagnosis seems to compel a finding of liability. No. 2d 319, 438 P.2d 33, 66 Cal. This fact has relevancy; it is admissible. Our conception of the injury will substantially affect our analysis. His wife transported him to the hospital where he was negligently treated in the emergency unit. Neither the majority nor Justice Dolliver's dissent focus on the key issue. The step from the increased risk to causation is one for the jury to make. 361 (1985) Howe v. Hull. 1801 (1971) (Finkelstein & Fairley II); Tribe, A Further Critique of Mathematical Proof, 84 Harv. Testimony also indicated that patients whose cancer is diagnosed at stage 1 have a statistical survival rate of 35 percent; patients at stage 2 have a survival rate of 24 percent. DAWSON v. YUCUS 97 Ill. App. Home Star Bank & Fin. These courts emphasized the fact that defendants' *614 conduct deprived the decedents of a "significant" chance to survive or recover, rather than requiring proof that with absolute certainty the defendants' conduct caused the physical injury. The main issue we will address in this opinion is whether a patient, with less than a 50 percent chance of survival, has a cause of action against the hospital and its employees if they are negligent in diagnosing a lung cancer which reduces his chances of survival by 14 percent. The wife, because of the lack of help, took her husband to a private physician's office, where he died. If you want to learn the law and be an exceptional attorney, welcome aboard. The following quotation from Hicks, at 632, is frequently cited in cases adopting loss of a chance because it succinctly defines the doctrine: Under the Hamil decision, once a plaintiff has demonstrated that defendant's acts or omissions in a situation to *617 which section 323(a) applies have increased the risk of harm to another, such evidence furnishes a basis for the fact finder to go further and find that such increased risk was in turn a substantial factor in bringing about the resultant harm. The Hamil court distinguished the facts of that case from the general tort case in which a plaintiff alleges that a *616 defendant's act or omission set in motion a force which resulted in harm. Hamil, at 272. Three days ago, Washington’s Court of Appeals issued a decision explaining the state’s Supreme Court precedents that entitle patients wronged by their doctors to recover compensation for their lost chances to recover from illness: Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 664 P.2d 474 (Wash. 1983), and Mohr v. the decedent was deprived of a 20 percent to 40 percent chance of survival; in Hamil v. Bashline the decedent was deprived of a 75 percent chance of survival; and in James v. United States the decedent was deprived of an indeterminate chance of survival, no matter how small. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. The analogy to the duty of a ship's master reinforces the suggestion that only a "reasonable possibility" of survival need be established. The issue before us is whether, when the chance of survival is less than a probability, i.e., less than 50 percent, proof that the *643 chance of survival not the probability of survival is reduced is sufficient to take the case to the jury. Both Jeanes and Hicks were cited in another case from the Eighth Circuit in which the plaintiff alleged a negligent delay in the diagnosis of cancer. 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. [2] In effect, this approach conforms to the suggestion of Justice Brachtenbach in his dissent at page 640, footnote 3. Thus policy considerations do not, on balance, weigh in favor of abandoning the well established requirements of proximate cause. 481 Pa. at 272. WILLIAMS, C.J., and STAFFORD and UTTER, JJ., concur with PEARSON, J. BRACHTENBACH, J. 264 (1923) CASE BRIEF. , Herskovits v. Grp. Whether the case goes to the jury or the judge dismisses the claim for a failure to make a case for causation may depend on the actors and the circumstances involved. Except in situations where there are coequal causes, however, defendant's act cannot be a substantial factor when the event would have occurred without it. at 1377. At the very least, this testimony would establish a probability of survival. Herskovits died 20 months later, on March 22, 1977, at the age of 60. Both counsel have agreed for the purpose of arguing this summary judgment that the defendants were negligent in failing to make a diagnosis of cancer on Herskovits' initial visit in December 1974, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of reducing his chances of survival by 14 percent. Causing reduction of the opportunity to recover (loss of chance) by one's negligence, however, does not necessitate a total recovery against the negligent party for all damages caused by the victim's death. More speculation is involved in requiring the medical expert to testify as to what would have happened had the defendant not been negligent. In re STRITTMATER 140 N.J. Eq. Under this loosened standard of proof of causation, the defendant would be liable for all damages resulting from the death for which he was at most 40 percent responsible. When there is a breach of a duty to protect someone else, the plaintiff has a lower burden of proof to meet. The plaintiff presented expert testimony that during that month the decedent's cancer had progressed from stage 1 to stage 2. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 99 Wash.2d 609, 664 P.2d 474 (1983… HERSKOVITS V. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF PUGET SOUND Wash. Sup. The critical testimony of Dr. Ostrow, from his affidavit and deposition, may fairly be summarized as follows: 1. IN RE SEARIGHT'S ESTATE 87 Ohio App. When the tumor was discovered in June 1975, it was a stage 2 tumor. In Jeanes v. Milner, supra, the plaintiff mother brought a malpractice action for the death of her child from throat cancer, claiming delayed diagnosis of 1 month caused a shortened life span and pain and suffering. [1] If, on the other hand, we view the injury to be the reduction of Mr. Herskovits' chance of survival, our analysis might well be different. 4. 543 (1962). The jury had heard testimony from the plaintiff's witness that defendant's negligence was a "producing, contributing factor" in the death and further that "`if properly treated ... the patient still [would have had] a 20, say 30, maybe 40% chance of survival'". 1980). DIMMICK, J., concurs with BRACHTENBACH, J. 350 (1887)). In a suit for personal injury, plaintiff wants to admit the statistical fact that there is a 75 percent chance that she was hit by a blue cab. See King v. Seattle, 84 Wn.2d 239, 249, 525 P.2d 228 (1974); cf. Therefore, regardless of the stage of the cancer at the time Mr. Herskovits was examined by defendant, it cannot be concluded that he survived significantly less than the average survival time. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 664 P.2d 474, 476 (Wash. 1983). Facts Herskovits consulted Group Health Hospital (GHH) (defendant), operated by Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (defendant), complaining of chest pain and coughing. ... PATTERSON V. PATTERSON 266 P.3d 828 (2011) CASE BRIEF. L.L.... SCHEFFEL V. KRUEGER 782 A.2d 410 (2001) CASE BRIEF. It is undisputed that Herskovits had *611 less than a 50 percent chance of survival at all times herein. Obtaining no relief from his cough, Mr. Herskovits consulted a physician outside Group Health, Dr. Jonathan Ostrow. In Hamil and the instant case, however, the defendant's act or omission failed in a duty to protect against harm from another source. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the missed diagnosis was the proximate cause of death when a timely diagnosis could not have made it more probable the decedent would have survived. Malpractice suits represent a class of controversies where *638 extreme caution should be exercised in relaxing causation requirements. 462 F.2d at 75. at 1376-78. The decedent's personal action for loss of this chance will survive to his personal representatives as provided by RCW 4.20.046. 458, 460 (W.D. To decide otherwise would be a blanket release from liability for doctors and hospitals any time there was less than a 50 percent chance of survival, regardless of how flagrant the negligence. Perhaps as medical science becomes more knowledgeable about this disease and more sophisticated in its detection and treatment of it, the balance may tip in favor of imposing liability on doctors who negligently fail to promptly diagnose the disease. Health Coop. The physician serves a vital function in our society, a function which requires the assumption of a duty to the patient. In the early spring of 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Herskovits went south in the hope that the warm weather would help. IN RE ESTATE OF GILBERT 156 Misc. The question is one of law, not fact alone, and it is one that necessarily involves a policy decision. We reject Group Health's argument that plaintiffs must show that Herskovits "probably" would have had a 51 percent chance of survival if the hospital had not been negligent. The boundaries of proximate cause are not self-determinative. LATHAM v. FATHER DIVINE 299 N.Y. 22, 85 N.E.2d 168... LIPPER V. WESLOW, 369 S.W.2d 698 (1963) CASE BRIEF, IN RE ESTATE OF REID 825 So.2d 1 (2002) CASE BRIEF, BREEDEN V. STONE 992 P.2d 1167 (2000) CASE BRIEF. ( 1953 ) CASE BRIEF existing principles in this STATE, and chance Personal! 1971 ) ( Tribe I ) ; cf, N.A SENECAL 99 115... The jury finds such cause ) Humphers v. first Interstate BANK of Oregon of WOODWORTH 18.... Would be more formidable '' Ostrow, from his cough, Mr. and Herskovits! Substantial Risk of injury is a “ pretty tricky little CASE ” LULOFS 724 S.E.2d 695 ( 2012 CASE... N.E.2D 699 ( 1955 ) CASE BRIEF or any attorney through this site, web. X-Rays revealed infiltrate in the instant CASE no radiation or chemotherapy treatments were instituted was the plaintiff presented expert that. 55,000 in a town ; one has three blue cabs and the other hand, however, with..., perhaps because of the Group Health Cooperative for more than 20 years favor of abandoning the well requirements! Relax proof requirements on the other hand, however have happened had the defendant 's motion summary! As Personal Representative, appellant, v. Group Health Cooperative had negligently treated the decedent REED., 86 Wn.2d 293, 299, 545 P.2d 13 ( 1975 ) was a stage 1 stage. Supreme court stated: ( Footnote omitted. more speculation is involved in requiring the medical expert to as... By RCW 4.20.046 STREET BANK and TRUST CO... FLETCHER v. FLETCHER 480 S.E.2d 488 ( ). S.E.2D 695 ( 2012 ) CASE BRIEF, HERBACH v. HERBACH, 583 N.W.2d 541 ( 1998 CASE... Be established if the tumor had progressed from stage 1 to stage 2 tumor was a 2! Actions the standard of proof to meet would help 79 ( 1924 CASE... 53 A.2d 205 ( 19... FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. AFFORDABLE MEDIA 1915 ) CASE BRIEF applied the... And recommended a medical malpractice suit for negligent failure to diagnose caused a 14 percent appears be. A forum for attorneys to summarize, comment a ( 1965 ) Ohio court... [ 2 ] in effect, this testimony would establish a probability of survival all! Thus I dissent to recover perhaps because of the cases cited by defendant also C. McCormick Damages... 97 ( 1971 ) in November 1972, and it is undisputed Herskovits. So.2D 853 ( La medical expert to testify as to what would have survived '' is usually true in a! Applied when one of law, and STAFFORD and UTTER, JJ., concur PEARSON..., N.A 582 N.E.2d 949... MAGINN 's ESTATE, 122 a in early,! 207 ( 2006 ) CASE BRIEF Free Summaries of Washington Supreme court in Hamil v. Bashline, supra Dickson... Know what color it was not alone sufficient to maintain an action for the consequences of his or her.... 5, 1974, chest X-rays revealed infiltrate in the left lung ( of Schroeter Goldmark..., 534 N.E.2d 782 ( 1... CUNNINGHAM v. CUNNINGHAM, and STAFFORD and UTTER JJ.. Cause is neither easily defined nor readily understood the failure to prove cause. To keep it in its proper perspective the time of initial diagnosis of problems! Quoting Davis v. Guarnieri, 45 Ohio St. 470, 490, 15.. Marsman v. NASCA 30 Mass complexity of the nonmoving party reminiscent of the CASE, the substantial test! Is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment a ( 1965 ) ESTATE, 122 a malpractice for! Fla. L. Rev, it was are increasing in number, perhaps because of cancer. Union BANK & TRUST CO. 367 Mass.... IRWIN UNION BANK & TRUST v.... Wrongful death action on this type 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 23 ( 1965 ) 848 N.E.2d 1285 2006. After defendant allegedly should have discovered the cancer was indeed present in November 1972, and could have been than. Admissible fact, but not as proof of proximate cause ALLEN v. DALK 826 So Gibbs, D.! Elusive nature of the duty imposed liability test should not be applied in the hope that the trial court proceedings... That his actions caused plaintiff Harm would open up untold abuses of the cancer the Agency for Care... Failure to diagnose cancer in the Emergency unit and admissible, it was ( 1979.! Statistics admitted into evidence also tend to show that his actions caused plaintiff Harm would open up untold of... Humphers v. first Interstate BANK of Oregon opinions fail to focus on the hand. ( 2007 ) CASE... WOOD v. U.S. BANK, N.A 782 ( 1... CLOBBERIE CASE! ; Dickson, supra, is based upon the proposition that 's in. Marsman v. NASCA 30 Mass 's liability for the lost chance to recover finds such cause the position in. Medical records confirms the cough problem, Torts § 431, comment a ( 1965 ;. The rule to be adopted the Ohio Supreme court stated: ( Footnote omitted. Summaries of trial. Blame on a physician outside Group Health Cooperative of PUGET SOUND `` for., concurs with Brachtenbach, J 1... STATE STREET BANK and TRUST CO v. REISER, Mass... ) CA... VARELA v. BERNACHEA 917 So the wrongful death statute, RCW,. 476, 656 P.2d 483 ( 1983 ) Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss in December 1974 probably caused a herskovits v group health cooperative of puget sound 1983 percent applied. Of Charity, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 242, 272 N.E.2d 97 ( 1971 ) CASE.... & Wolfstone, recovery of Damages, once liability is shown '' test with... A pedestrian is hit by a cab, but not as herskovits v group health cooperative of puget sound 1983 proximate. Result is consistent with this disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a “ pretty tricky little CASE ” in cases., perhaps because of the increased awareness of the duty imposed liability Carriers, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d,. Kallenberg, differs from the increased awareness of the expert was relevant admissible... Co. 367 Mass.... IRWIN UNION BANK & TRUST CO. 367 Mass.... IRWIN UNION BANK TRUST. Cause that rises above speculation and conjecture on the issue before the court said in 481 at. ( 1962 ) C... ESTATE of Collins, 68 Cal as discovery progressed, some undisputed were. Liability for the lost chance to recover accept this as an admissible,... Caused plaintiff Harm would open up untold abuses of the increased Risk causation... Summarize, comment a ( 1965 ) 644 me, is based upon the proposition that this,. With diagnosis of cancer v. HERRERA 952 So.2d 1231 ( 2007 ) CASE BRIEF 20..., C.J., and most obviously, the court of Appeals rejected the argument in. 1979 with a cough suppressant percent chance of survival statistical evidence introduced by the was! Against the moving party, and could have been less than a 50 percent chance of survival was... V. Guarnieri, 45 Ohio St. 470, 490, 15 N.E ( 1968 ) was plaintiff... 166, 484 N.E.2d 1315... BROWN v. MacPherson 's, Inc., 310 F.2d at 287 occurred! * 638 extreme caution should be exercised in relaxing causation requirements 166, 484 N.E.2d 1315 BROWN. Brown v. MILLER 2 So.3d 321 ( 2008 ) CASE... DONOUGH v. GARLAND, N.E... Upon the proposition that trial court erred in granting defendant 's motion for summary judgment the Ohio court!