- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
April 19, 2021Robins Kaplan Recommits to ABA Pledge on Well-being in the Legal Profession
-
April 16, 2021Ronald Schutz Named 2021 Lawdragon Legend
-
April 14, 2021Robins Kaplan Secures Asylum, Relative Petition for Somali Journalist
-
April 13, 20, and 27, 2021Conversations on Cross-Border IP Protection and Enforcement
-
April 28, 2021Creating the Audit Clause for Today’s Compliance Review
-
April 29, 2021International Intellectual Property: Challenges of Cross-Border Litigation
-
First QuarterANDA Approvals
-
First QuarterANDA Litigation Settlements
-
First QuarterGeneric Launches
-
April 19, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.19.2021 | Top Story: Bitcoin Plummets In Correction Following Coinbase’s Public Debut
-
April 16, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.16.2021 | Top Story: Lower Jobless Claims and Big U.S. Retail Sales Power Dow Above 34,000
-
April 15, 2021Financial Daily Dose 4.15.2021 | Top Story: Big Banks Deliver Huge Q1 Profits, Economic Optimism Despite Ongoing Challenges
"Loss of Chance" Claims
With Dickhoff v. Green, 836 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized loss of chance claims in Minnesota for the first time ever. This article provides definitions and background so that these claims can be understood.
October 21, 2013
With Dickhoff v. Green, 836 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized loss of chance claims in Minnesota for the first time ever. This article provides definitions and background so that these claims can be understood.
“Loss of chance” is a term that arises most often in cases where a patient’s disease went undiagnosed and untreated for some period of time. In delayed diagnosis cases, the compensable injury is rarely the disease itself. A patient presents with some existing ailment that, for whatever reason, goes undiagnosed. Most people know that when it comes to disease, earlier treatment is usually better than later treatment. Medical negligence can sometimes take away a patient’s ability to get that earlier treatment. Any delay is often associated with a decreased probability of surviving the disease – a “loss of chance.”
A diagnosis missed as a result of negligence creates liability on the part of a health care provider for the damage caused by that delay. So to pursue a case for malpractice, there must be expert evidence establishing the compensable harm resulting from the difference between the patient’s actual health and what the patient’s health would have been with a timely diagnosis. Identifying these percentages with medically supported precision is crucial to these cases, and there is inevitably a comparison between percentages of survival.
Before Dickhoff, to recover noneconomic damages, it was often necessary to connect the delay in treatment to the death from the underlying disease. This meant that the evidence would have to show that a patient’s likelihood of survival went from above 50% to below 50%. So while a patient might have a relatively poor prognosis and a 51% chance of survival at the time a diagnosis was missed, a wrongful death claim could proceed if a delay brought that probability below 50%. In comparison, a patient with a beginning likelihood of survival below 50% would never have a valid claim for noneconomic harms, regardless of the negligence at issue.
Now with an ability to recover for loss of chance, the delay no longer has to be tied to death. In other words, crossing the bright line at 50% survival is no longer necessary to get past summary judgment. Under Dickhoff, a patient may have a valid claim for a drop in survival regardless of how big the drop is. While it should be remembered that size of this drop directly impacts the amount of harm that may be recovered, we should all be aware that patients who did not have a cause of action before Dickhoff might be able to bring a claim now.
© 2013 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Patrick Stoneking
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.