Featured Posts
- Urgent Hospital Readmissions are Avoidable in Nearly One out of Five Cases
- Medical Malpractice Risk Perception at Odds with the Reality
- Patients Need to Act Promptly in a Medical Mapractice Case
- Long-Term Care and Nursing Home Legislation Mandates Health Care and Prohibits Neglect and Abuse
- Recent Study Finds Doctors Unrevealing About Treatment Options
- Higher Standards in Hospital Policies
- Whither Medical Malpractice Compensation
-
Recent Posts
- Chronic Pain Injury Compensation
- Patient Ombudsman of Ontario A New Complaint Process
- Recent Medical Malpractice Case Shows What Can Happen When You Don’t Have A Lawyer
- Medical Malpractice Law Firms Owe a Duty of Loyalty
- Misdiagnosis of Cancer Cases Amount to 1 in 10 Settlements
- Medical Error Caused by Prevalent and Pervasive Surgeon Fatigue
- Medical Malpractice Claims Studied for Litigation Rate
- Rate of Prescribing Errors in General Practice Revealed
- Pathology Errors Continue at Windsor Hospitals
- Misdiagnosed Patient
- Consequences of Bariatric Surgery Malpractice
- Measures of Hospital Safety are Incomplete
- Wrong Level Spine Surgery
- Medical Negligence Claims Shown to Improve Patient Safety
- Nine Types of Pharmacist Negligence
- Twelve Hospital Negligence Errors
- A Survival Guide to Obstetrical Malpractice for 2012 at the Mount Sinai Hospital
- Failure to Diagnose Cancer Cases Explained
- Urgent Hospital Readmissions are Avoidable in Nearly One out of Five Cases
- Medical Malpractice Risk Perception at Odds with the Reality
- Teaching Medical Malpractice Advocacy at the University of Toronto
- Medical Device Approval Process Is Defective
- Medical Errors Continue to Harm Patients According to a New Study
- Urological Medical Malpractice
- Lung Cancer and Medical Malpractice
- Wrong Site Surgery Increases After the Introduction of the Universal Protocol
- Practical Car Accident Tips
- Patients Need to Act Promptly in a Medical Mapractice Case
- Sudbury Regional Hospital Emergency Department Performance Worsening
- Long-Term Care and Nursing Home Legislation Mandates Health Care and Prohibits Neglect and Abuse
- Surgeons and Referring Physicians are Responsible for Wrong Site and Patient Procedures
- Recent Study Finds Doctors Unrevealing About Treatment Options
- Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Require Expert Opinion Evidence before Trial
- Gastric Banding Concerns for Teenagers
- Cataracts Lead to Diagnostic Errors
- Drug Side Effect Reporting
- The Elderly Continue to be at Risk from Anti-Psychotic Medication
- Champix Safety Brought into Question
- Surgeons Can Do More to Reduce the Risk of Infection
- Never Events Responsible for Every Sixth Claim
- Chelation Study Suspended
- Joint Commission Alert: Prevent Blood Thinner Deaths and Overdoses: Anticoagulant therapy linked to high rate of errors
- Antibiotic use in pregnancy linked to cerebral palsy
- Canada’s health care fares poorly when compared to Western Europe
- The Vulnerable Hurt by Caps on Medical Malpractice Claims
- Vaccine Risk Declarations and Nurses
- Loss of Chance in the Medical Case Alive in Massachusetts
- Higher Standards in Hospital Policies
- Drug Safety
- Promotion of Patient’s Rights of Regulatory Concern
Ways To Connect
Categories
Loss of Chance in the Medical Case Alive in Massachusetts
On July 23 2008 in the case of Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, et althe highest appellate court in Massachusetts rendered a significant judgment dealing with the loss of chance arising out of negligent medical error. At trial the jury found the defendant physician liable for failing to diagnose gastric cancer in the presence of gastric distress over a period of 4 years of assessment. The patient died within months of the diagnosis. It was inferred by the experts that at the time of initial assessment the patient was suffering from stage 2 cancer with only a 25 to 40 per cent chance of survival. The jury found that the defendant’s negligence decreased the the patient’s chance of survival by 37.5 per cent and the court awarded that proportion of wrongful death damages in addition to damages for prolonged pain and suffering.
In a view in stark contrast with the Canadian jurisprudence the court declared that permitting recovery for loss of chance is particularly appropriate in the area of medical negligence. Furthermore the panel of seven judges stated that recognizing loss of chance in the limited domain of medical negligence advances the fundamental goals and principles of tort law. The loss of chance doctrine has its origins in dissatisfaction with the prevailing “all or nothing” rule of tort recovery which requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant’s negligence more likely than not caused the ultimate outcome, in which case the plaintiff then recovers 100 per cent of his or her damages. This is to be contrasted to the award of nil damages under the “all or nothing rule” for the patient whose chance of survival is only 49 per cent.
The court relied on the deterrence object of tort law and took care to point out that the all or nothing rule fails to deter medical negligence because it immunizes whole areas of medical practice from liability, fails to provide the proper incentives to ensure that the care patients receive does not slip below the standard of care and skill of the average member of the profession practising the specialty and fails to ensure that victims, who incur the real harm of losing their opportunity for a better outcome, are fairly compensated for their loss.
The court was also sensitive to the practical realities of the medical negligence case in pointing out that it is the defendant’s negligence which effectively makes it impossible to know whether the person would have achieved a more favorable outcome had he or she received the appropriate standard of care, which would then make it particularly unjust to deny the person recovery for being unable to demonstrate to an absolute certainty what would have happened in circumstances that the wrongdoer did not allow to come to pass.
Unfortunately there is no sign yet that these arguments will hold sway in the highest levels of Canadian courts which have rejected compensation on the basis of loss of chance in medical negligence cases.