- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- 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
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
"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.