- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Restructuring and Business Bankruptcy
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
- Litigation Support Services
-
December 4, 2019State of Minnesota Sues JUUL
-
November 26, 2019Minnesota Lawyer Honors Two Robins Kaplan Attorneys as 2019 Attorneys of the Year
-
November 21, 2019Firm, Attorney Stacey Slaughter Recognized by National Law Journal
-
December 10, 2019Youth Frontiers Ethical Leadership Luncheon
-
December 11, 2019Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Associates’ Campaign Kickoff
-
December 11, 2019Minnesota ICON Honors Award Ceremony
-
November 2019CLASS ACTION: Experts weigh in on significant class action developments
-
November 15, 20192019 Case Developments: Are Massachusetts Insurers Required To Be Perfect In An Imperfect World?
-
November 15, 2019Artificial Intelligence v. General Data Protection Regulation: Complex Risks in Changing Times
"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.
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.