In many medical malpractice cases, the defendant physician’s conduct did not “cause” the plaintiff to develop the particular condition that resulted in injury. Instead, it is often claimed that by failing to diagnose a condition such as cancer, or institute treatment at an earlier time, the defendant deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity for a better outcome—the so-called “loss of chance” doctrine. Confusion persists as to the plaintiff’s burden of proof and the appropriate measure of damages in such cases. In addition, a possible criticism of the doctrine is that it runs contrary to the plaintiff’s burden of proof.
In its recent decision in Wild v. Catholic Health System,1 the Court of Appeals held that the issue of whether New York recognizes the “loss of chance” doctrine was unpreserved. In that case, the plaintiff’s decedent, an elderly woman, suffered a perforation of the esophagus during a complicated intubation attempt. As a result, for the last three years of her life she required a feeding tube.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
