1 Loss of Chance, Probabilistic Cause, and Damage Calculations: The Error in Matsuyama v. Birnbaum and the Majority Rule of Damages in Many Jurisdictions More Generally Robert J. Rhee* This short commentary corrects an erroneous understanding of probabilistic causation in the loss-of-chance doctrine and the damage calculation method adopted in Matsuyama v. Birnbaum. 1 The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is not alone. Many other common law courts have made the same error, including Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oklahoma. 2 The consistency in the mistake suggests that the error is the majority rule of damages. I demonstrate here that this majority rule is based on erroneous mathematical reasoning and the fallacy of probabilistic logic. To be clear, I do not contest the propriety of the loss-of-chance doctrine because the underlying policy sensibly addresses the social problem of medical malpractice inflicted on severely ill patients. 3 Without the doctrine, there would be no such thing as medical malpractice for patients who were more likely to not survive the ailment. I only comment on the conceptual understanding of probabilistic causation and the nature of probability-based damage calculation. The essential error in Matsuyama and other courts decisions is a misconception of the reference class from which probabilistic *Marbury Research Professor of Law; Co-Director, Business Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. I thank my colleagues Andrew Blair-Stanek and Don Gifford for their helpful comments N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 2008). 2. See, e.g., Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, (Ind. 2000); Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 805 P.2d 589, 592 (Nev. 1991); Alberts v. Schultz, 975 P.2d 1279, (N.M. 1999); Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 668 N.E.2d 480, (Ohio 1996); McKellips v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 741 P.2d 467, (Okla. 1987). 3. See Robert J. Rhee, The Application of Finance Theory to Increased Risk Harms in Toxic Tort Litigation, 23 VA. ENVTL. L.J. 111, (2004). See generally Joseph H. King, Jr., Causation, Valuation, and Chance in Personal Injury Torts Involving Preexisting Conditions and Future Consequences, 90 YALE L.J (1981). The loss-of-chance doctrine has been adopted by many jurisdictions. See Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at 828 n.23 (citing jurisdictions that have adopted loss of chance doctrine). Some jurisdictions have rejected the loss-of-chance doctrine. See Fennell v. S. Md. Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 580 A.2d 206, 215 (Md. 1990); see also id. at 209 n.3 (citing jurisdictions that have rejected loss-of-chance doctrine); Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at n.23 (same).
2 40 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. I:39 causation is calculated. This error undervalues damages in certain types of cases where even after the medical malpractice, the plaintiff still had some residual chance of survival, though she ultimately died, thus begetting the cause of action. LOSS-OF-CHANCE DOCTRINE AND DAMAGE CALCULATION The loss-of-chance doctrine applies in medical malpractice actions in which the plaintiff cannot prove traditional but for causation because she was likely to die from her ailment even before the negligence. The doctor s negligence is typically the failure to diagnose the condition or to treat the condition, and as a result the plaintiff suffers the loss of a chance to survive. Under a traditional analysis, as a matter of probability it is more likely than not that the natural ailment killed the plaintiff in each instance, and the doctor would escape liability no matter how egregious the negligence. This situation leads to what scholars have called recurring misses, when doctors systematically escape liability for negligent treatment in cases involving severely ill patients. 4 Matsuyama presents a typical fact pattern. 5 The plaintiff had cancer at the time he was examined by the defendant. The examination failed to detect the cancer. The jury found that at the time of the initial examination, the plaintiff had only a 37.5% chance of survival. 6 The defendant s negligence destroyed that small chance to survive. 7 As a matter of probability, he would have succumbed to his natural health condition irrespective of the negligence. Of course, if we had three such plaintiffs in exactly the same condition, the odds suggest that negligence would have killed one of them. 8 Common law courts have adopted the loss-of-chance doctrine to provide plaintiffs a remedy in medical malpractice cases. 9 Loss of chance is an 4. See Daniel A. Farber, Recurring Misses, 19 J. LEGAL STUD. 727, (1990); Saul Levmore, Probabilistic Recoveries, Restitution, and Recurring Wrongs, 19 J. LEGAL STUD. 691, (1990). 5. Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at Id. at The plaintiff had a post-negligence chance of survival of 0% to 5%. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819, 845 (Mass. 2008). 8. The precise probability that at least one of the deaths would have been caused by negligence is: [1 Probability(No Negligence)] where Probability(No Negligence) = x x This means that based on the law of multiplication the chances of all three independent events resulting in death from ailments is the product of the probabilities. See M.G. BULMER, PRINCIPLES OF STATISTICS (1979). The probability that in all three cases the natural ailment would kill the plaintiff is Accordingly, the probability of at least one death having resulted from negligence is: = 75.6%. This simply means that on a repeating basis, negligence causes harms even if the individual probability is small because the small chance of a bad thing, if repeated, eventually catches up. This is also the reason why the loss-of-chance doctrine is a sensible rule of law addressing the problem of medical malpractice in cases where patients are severely ill in the first place. 9. The loss-of-chance doctrine extends only to medical malpractice actions. See Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at 834 ( We emphasize that our decision today is limited to loss of chance in medical malpractice actions. ).
3 2013] LOSS OF CHANCE, PROBALISTIC CAUSE, AND DAMAGE CALCULATIONS 41 exception to the traditional causation analysis, and provides an alternative theory of liability for medical malpractice. The doctrine recognizes that a plaintiff s loss of probabilistic chance to survive should be a cognizable injury. 10 Courts provide an award of damages based on this probabilistic loss of chance. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Matsuyama provides a fivestep process for calculating damages. 11 The jury must find these facts: (1) the full amount of damages allowable for the injury, without any probabilistic offset; (2) the probability of survival before the medical malpractice; (3) the probability of survival after the medical malpractice; (4) the difference in probabilities between steps (2) and (3); and (5) the product of the difference in probabilities (4) and the full amount of damages (1). We can generalize this rule of law with this formula: J = D x (P R) where J = award of damages D = full damages P = pre-negligence chance of survival R = post-negligence residual chance of survival The court provides the following numeric example to illustrate the damage calculation: The full value of a wrongful death is $600,000. The patient had a 45% chance of survival before the medical practice. The patient had a 15% chance of survival after the medical malpractice. Based on the reduction of 30% chance of survival, the court suggests that the damage for loss of chance is: 30% (reduction in chance) x $600,000 (full loss) = $180,000 (damages). 12 A number of other courts have adopted the same approach toward damage calculations. 13 For example, in McKellips v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., the Supreme Court of Oklahoma gave this example: The full value of a wrongful death is $500,000. The patient had a 40% chance of survival before the medical malpractice. The patient had a 25% chance of survival after the medical malpractice. Based on the 15% reduction of chance of survival, the court suggested that the damage for loss of chance is $75,000 (= 15% x 10. See generally King, supra note 3 (defining loss-of-chance cause of action). 11. See Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at Id. 13. See supra note 2 (listing courts adopting loss-of-chance approach).
4 42 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. I:39 $500,000). 14 Indeed, this method in McKellips has influenced a number of subsequent decisions, including Matsuyama. 15 The above damage calculation method is a common approach taken by courts in conceptualizing causation analysis and damage calculation. This approach is wrong. In fact, for reasons explained below, the damages in the above hypotheticals should be $211,765 in the Matsuyama hypothetical 16 and $100,000 in the McKellips hypothetical. 17 The Matsuyama court and other courts have incorrectly calculated probabilistic causation and the damage calculations derived therefrom. The method of calculation endorsed in these cases is correct only in the special case when malpractice reduced the chance of survival to zero. If the malpractice still left a residual chance of survival (as seen in the hypotheticals above), then as a matter of mathematics and probability, the method of damage calculation adopted by the courts is incorrect. THE SPECIAL CASE OF ZERO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL When medical malpractice reduces a less-than-probable chance of survival to zero chance of survival, the proper damage amount is the reduction in the chance of survival multiplied by the full value of the loss. In these cases, the Matsuyama and McKellips method produces the correct result. For example, assume the following: (1) full value of loss is $600,000; (2) the chance of survival before the negligence is 30%; and (3) the chance of survival after the negligence is 0%. The damage calculation is: 30% (reduction in chance) x $600,000 (full loss) = $180,000 (damages). In calculating the percentage decrease in the probability of survival due to negligence, we first need the reference class (the denominator in the fraction). Logically, the denominator is the number of people who died: The reference class is based on the number of people who died from either the natural ailment condition or the malpractice. This constitutes the 100% another way to say this is that all deaths are explained as having been caused by a natural condition or by negligence. The numerator is the number of people who died from the negligence, and this fraction calculates the damages based on probabilistic causation. An easier way to think about this situation in probabilistic terms is to imagine 100 people in the identical position. Irrespective of any negligence, 14. McKellips v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 741 P.2d 467, (Okla. 1987). 15. See Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819, 840 (Mass. 2008) (citing McKellips); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, (Ind. 2000) (same); Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 805 P.2d 589, 592 (Nev. 1991) (same); Alberts v. Schultz, 975 P.2d 1279, 1287 (N.M. 1999) (same); Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 668 N.E.2d 480, (Ohio 1996) (same). 16. This value is calculated as: $211,765 = (30% 85%) x $600, This value is calculated as: $100,000 = (15% 75%) x $500,000.
5 2013] LOSS OF CHANCE, PROBALISTIC CAUSE, AND DAMAGE CALCULATIONS 43 how many of these people would have died naturally from the ailment? Seventy people. How many died from the malpractice? Thirty people. What is the probabilistic causation attributable to the negligent doctor? The answer must be 30%, calculated as 30/100. Thus, the damage calculation based on $600,000 full loss must be $180,000 (= 30% x $600,000). We can generalize the special case where the negligence reduces the prenegligence chance of survival to zero (death is certain after the negligence) as the following: J = D x P where J = award of damages D = full damages P = pre-negligence chance of survival This method is seen in Matsuyama and other cases. In Matsuyama, the damage calculation formula was: J = D x (P R), but since R = 0 in the special case, the formula reduces to: J = D x P. This method applies only when there is no residual chance of survival. Otherwise, the application of this method is an error as a matter of probability analysis. THE NORMAL CASE OF RESIDUAL CHANCE OF SURVIVAL When malpractice reduces a less-than-probable chance of survival but there still remains a residual chance of survival after the negligence, 18 the proper damage amount cannot be the product of the reduction in the chance of survival and the full value of the loss. For example, assume the exact hypothetical provided in Matsuyama: (1) full value of loss is $600,000; (2) the chance of survival before the negligence is 45%; and (3) the chance of survival after the negligence is 15%, which is the residual chance of survival after the negligence. The damage cannot be $180,000 (= 30% x $600,000) as Matsuyama suggests. To see why, again imagine 100 people in the plaintiff s exact situation. How many of these people would have died naturally from the ailment? Fifty-five people, because the plaintiff had a 45% chance of survival before the malpractice. How many would have died from the malpractice? Thirty people, because the doctor reduced the chance of survival from 45% to 15%. How many people would have survived despite the negligence? Fifteen people, because there is still a 15% residual chance of survival after the negligence. Because these 15 people would have survived the natural ailment and the 18. See, e.g., Herskovits v. Grp. Health Coop., 664 P.2d 474, 475 (Wash. 1983) (en banc) (negligence reduced chance of survival from 39% to 25%, and plaintiff subsequently died). I call this the normal case because my intuition is that most patients still have some residual chance of survival even after the negligence.
6 44 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. I:39 malpractice, they would have no injury and thus no legal claim. How many people would have died in total? Eighty-five people. The reference class from which probability is calculated must be all injured people, which is 85 people and not 100 people. Of these unfortunate 85 people, 55 died from the natural ailment, and 30 died from the malpractice. What, then, is the probabilistic causation attributable to the negligent doctor? The answer clearly cannot be 30%. The probabilistic causation attributable to the doctor s negligence must be: 30/85 = 35.3%. Thus, the damage calculation must be: 35.3% (reduction in chance) x $600,000 (full loss) = $211,765 (damages). The error in the hypothetical resulted in an undervaluation of damages of $31,765. The Matsuyama decision confirms its error in discussing the specific facts of the case. The plaintiff had a pre-negligence chance of survival of 37.5% and $875,000 full value of damages. 19 The plaintiff had a 0% to 5% postnegligence chance of survival. 20 The court suggested that the actual postnegligence chance of survival was an important fact that the trial court should have considered, which is correct as a general application of the rule, but the court used an incorrect statistical reasoning to explain why the datum is important. The court opined that a 5% residual chance of survival would cause a 32.5% loss of chance, rather than 37.5%, decreasing damages from $328,125 (= 37.5% x $875,000) to $284,375 (= 32.5% x $875,000). 21 As explained above, this is the wrong analysis of the plaintiff s actual damages. If there is a finding that the plaintiff had a 5% residual chance of survival, the probabilistic causation attributable to the defendant s negligence would be: 32.5% 95% = 34.2%. Thus, the damages are: 34.2% x $875,000 = $299,342. The error in Matsuyama produces only a small difference between the erroneous damages and correct damages because the residual chance was so small. In other cases where the residual chance is large, the difference in damage amounts can be large. Consider this hypothetical: The plaintiff s prenegligence chance of survival was 50%, and full damages are $600,000. The defendant s negligence reduces the chance of survival to only 10%. The damages are $266,667 (= 40% 90% x $600,000). However, if the defendant s negligence reduces the chance of survival to only 40%, the damages are $100,000 (= 10% 60% x $600,000). Thus, the residual chance of survival which is an indicator of how the negligence took away the chance of survival matters greatly in the damage calculation Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at Id. at Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819, 845 n.55 (Mass. 2008). 22. My colleague Andrew Blair-Stanek provided this additional analysis in a conversation. Suppose a doctor misdiagnoses 100 identical patients: Each patient had a life worth $1 million, a 50% chance of survival without the malpractice, and a residual post-negligence 15% chance of survival. The doctor causes 35 unnecessary deaths due to negligence. The formula used by courts should result in the doctor paying a total of
7 2013] LOSS OF CHANCE, PROBALISTIC CAUSE, AND DAMAGE CALCULATIONS 45 We can generalize the rule of law for damage calculation when there is a post-negligence residual chance of survival: J = D x P R 1 R where J = award of damages D = full damages P = pre-negligence chance of survival R = post-negligence residual chance of survival This formulation takes into account that a percentage of patients survive both the ailment and the negligence, and as a result they are not injured and cannot be plaintiffs. These people must be excluded from the calculation of probabilistic causation. Note also that the above formula produces the same outcome as the formula used in the special case where there is no residual chance of survival (recall that the formula in the special case is J = D x P). If R = 0, then the following must be true: D x P = D x P R 1 R Thus, my corrected formula should be the general rule of law applicable to both the special and normal cases. Lastly, I note that my formula requires no more additional factfinding or exceptional application of mathematical analysis by juries. The math is basic elementary school arithmetic, and in any loss-of-chance case, juries are still required to find the pre- and post-negligence chance of survival: The variables are still only D, P, and R. As a matter of judicial administration, the only adjustment required is the application of a correctly stated and conceived formula to calculate probabilistic causation and damages. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS If courts adopt the loss-of-chance doctrine, and many do, they must award damages based on the probabilistic causal contribution of the defendant s negligence to the plaintiff s death. Indeed, courts embrace this concept of $35 million, which is the harm to society. The Matsuyama formula results in each dead patient getting $1M x (50% - 15%) = $350,000. Because there are 85 dead patients, the doctor pays only 85 x $350,000 = $29.75 million in total damages, instead of the $35 million. Under the correct formula, each patient gets: $1M x (50% - 15%) (100% - 15%) = $411,764. If we multiply this amount by the 85 dead patients who can sue, it is $35 million, which is the amount of damage the doctor caused to society.
8 46 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. I:39 probabilistic causation and damages. 23 How, then, did the courts err in the analysis? The error in the mathematical logic arises from the choice of perspective on uncertainty. Courts have conceptualized probabilistic causation from an ex ante perspective when in theory they should consider probabilities from an ex post perspective. 24 An ex ante perspective views the probability of an uncertain future event, through the concept of expected value. Expected value is the chance of something occurring in the future given various potential outcomes. Probabilities are assigned to the various outcomes. Mathematically, the calculation is simply the sum of the products of probabilities and outcomes: E(x) = P 1 X 1 + P 2 X P n X n where P i is the probability given an outcome X i. The logic of Matsuyama and other cases is apparent. If we consider the potential future outcomes of medical malpractice and calculate an expected value, that calculation would be: E(x) = P P P 3 D where P 1 is the probability of survival, P 2 is the probability of death from the natural ailment, P 3 is the probability of death from the negligence, and P 1 + P 2 + P 3 = 1. Since a plaintiff can recover nothing from surviving or death from natural causes, the expected value of a doctor s negligence is E(x) = P 3 D, which is what courts have adopted as the rule of law on damages. However, when a person dies, which is a precondition to bringing a medical malpractice claim for loss of chance, we are no longer concerned with various states of future outcomes including the possibility of survival, but instead we are looking back in time to the past. The reference class is the group of dead plaintiffs, and should not include the class of people who survived (this last bit of uncertainty has been resolved). We have a past occurrence of death, and we must assign only two probabilities: P(d 1 ) the probability that death resulted from the ailment, and P(d 2 ) the probability that death resulted from negligence where P(d 1 ) + P(d 2 ) = 1. The residual chance of survival must be taken out of the equation. The causation analysis must answer the question: Given that death occurred, what was the probability that it resulted from the negligence? Damages should follow therefrom. 23. See Matsuyama, 890 N.E.2d at 839 ( The formula aims to ensure that a defendant is liable in damages only for the monetary value of the portion of the decedent s prospects that the defendant s negligence destroyed. ); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, 541 (Ind. 2000) (holding damage calculation should not hold doctors liable beyond their own negligence); King, supra note 3, at 1382 ( A better method of valuation would measure a compensable chance as the percentage probability by which the defendant s tortious conduct diminished the likelihood of achieving some more favorable outcome. ). 24. Cf. Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 777, 784 (2001) (suggesting judges subject to heuristics and biases that result in incorrect legal decisions).
TRIAL TALK COLORADO TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION June/July 2007 53 Years on the Side of People Volume 56 Issue 4 Serving Trial Lawyers for 52 years EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE EXPERT WITNESS OFFICERS MEDICAL
RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT
Journal of Health & Biomedical Law, Vol. V (2009): 117-129 2009 Journal of Health & Biomedical Law Suffolk University Law School Medical Malpractice Law-Loss of Chance: Recovery for the Lost Opportunity
Loss of Chance Rules and the Valuation of Loss of Chance Damages Ralph R. Frasca University of Dayton Part I Introduction A defendant is liable for damages if it can be proven that her negligence was both
TORT LAW LOSS OF A CHANCE DOCTRINE MASSACHU- SETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT ACCEPTS LOSS OF A CHANCE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUITS. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 2008). Negligence plaintiffs
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: BRYCE H. BENNETT, JR. ROBERT C. BRANDT Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KAREN NEISWINGER Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 email@example.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
Missouri Law Review Volume 59 Issue 4 Fall 1994 Article 5 Fall 1994 Loss of a Chance As a Cause of Action in Medical Malpractice Cases Robert S. Bruer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr
Arizona s Loss of a Chance Doctrine Not a Cause of Action, but More Than an Evidentiary Rule by Stephen A. Bullington Parker was taken to the emergency room with tightness in his chest and severe shortness
The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 50, Issue 2 (1989) 1989 Causation in Medical Malpractice: A Modified Valuation
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS W. VOELKER KIRK D. BAGROWSKI Eichhorn & Eichhorn Hammond, Indiana AMICUS CURIAE Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana PETER H. POGUE DONALD B. KITE Schultz & Pogue
Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics January 2013, Volume 15, Number 1: 46-50. HEALTH LAW Medicine, the Law, and Conceptions of Evidence Valarie Blake, JD, MA Evidence-based medicine
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSELLE SUCHARSKI, Plaintiff, v. RANJANJUM PATEL, M.D., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 12-3298 MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Rajanjum
Increasing the risk of injury and proof of causation on the balance of probabilities Sandy Steel A risk is a probability of a negative outcome. 1 The concept of risk plays several distinct roles in relation
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 97-C-0188 MELVIN GRAHAM versus WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL CALOGERO, Chief Justice, dissenting. In my view,
HON. JOHN M. CURRAN is a Justice of the Supreme Court, Erie County. Prior to joining the court, he was in private practice and served as a town justice. He received his undergraduate degree from the University
PAPER NO. 4/2012 MARCH 2012 Suing for the Loss of the Right to Sue: Why Wright is Wrong Nicholas McBride & Sandy Steel Further information about the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies
This article was first published in Volume 11 (2014) of the Indiana Civil Litigation Review, a publication of Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. Reprinted and distributed with the permission of the Defense
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE UNDER NRS 41.141: FALLING SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS BY Michael P. Lowry, Esq. NRS 41.141 was first enacted in 1973 with the goal of abolishing the harsh doctrines of contributory negligence
Advocate Magazine March 2011 Why medical malpractice still matters. Despite MICRA limitations, medical-negligence claims still have a crucial role in society BY BRUCE G. FAGEL We all know the statistics
Calculating Changes in Worklife Expectancies and Lost Earnings in Personal Injury Cases Michael Nieswiadomy Eugene Silberberg Abstract This paper utilizes the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) new worklife
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn  A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the
Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 12 1961 Res Judicata Personal Injury and Vehicle Property Damage Arising from a Single Accident John Ilich Jr. University of Nebraska College of Law Follow
Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers 2014 Granby Street, Suite 200 Norfolk, VA, 23517 (757) 455-0077 (866) 455-6657 (Toll Free) YOUR RIGHTS WHEN YOU ARE INJURED ON THE RAILROAD Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers 2014
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Alan VerPlanck Daniel G. McNamara Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Milford M. Miller Edward L. Murphy, Jr. Michael A. Barranda Fort Wayne, Indiana In the Indiana Supreme
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Susan E. Cline Meggan Brumbaugh Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert L. Thompson F. John Rogers Fort Wayne, Indiana Richard L. Schultheis Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW LEGAL METHOD-CIVIL PROCEDURE (3 Hours) Day Division Wednesday, December 18, 1991 Professor Condlin - Section B 9:10 a.m. - 12:10 p.m. No. Signature: Printed Name: INSTRUCTIONS:
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Hale Timeline Bushes blocking sidewalk Looks into street Decides to leave sidewalk Trips over concrete Salinetro Timeline MD no ask if pregnant/when last period Terminates pregnancy/fetus dead X-rays Hypo
QUESTION NO. 3 Amendment to Titles 1 and 3 of the Nevada Revised Statutes CONDENSATION (ballot question) Shall Title 1 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing attorneys, and Title 3 of the Nevada Revised
Page 1 of 7 809.66 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - HEALTH CARE PROVIDER'S LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF NON-EMPLOYEE AGENTS - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - APPARENT AGENCY. 1 NOTE WELL: This instruction previously was labeled N.C.P.I.
Proving Negligence Once you show standard of care (what reasonable person would have done in circumstances) Must then show DEF deviated from that Pleading Directed verdict Jury Plead sufficient facts Sufficient
What is my claim worth? This is probably the most common and important question asked by a Claimant pursuing a personal injury claim. At the end of the day, it is the recovery of compensation for the injury
LOST CHANCE DOCTRINE Background In order to recover damages in a typical tort action, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-CC-0455 JUDY WALLS ET AL. Versus AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON LEMMON, J., Dissenting
Negligence: Element III: Proximate Cause Chapter 15 Introduction Proximate Cause. 1) the causation question (cause in fact): Did the defendant cause the plaintiff s injury? 2) The policy question ( a cut-off
2000 PA Super 205 KATHLEEN BORING, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellee No. 1110 WDA 1999 Appeal from the Judgment entered June 15, 1999 in the Court
Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors By: Joseph B. Carini III & Catherine H. Reiter Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Ltd. Illinois Courts have long
LVM: Session 5 Author: Paul Waldau, D.Phil., J.D. We begin with this fundamental question, What is malpractice? We discuss the basic issues and the legal standard (this subject will be raised again later
Strafford, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Superior Court SS. Robert and Dawn Brauel v. Gregory V. White, M.D. and Gastroenterology Professional Association Docket No. 96-C-0238 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC The trial of a legal malpractice action raises several practical issues
Personal Injury Law: Minnesota Medical Malpractice Medical Malpractice Terms Statutes of Limitations Minnesota Medical Malpractice Laws Medical malpractice includes many forms of liability producing conduct
Common Myths About Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases 1 By B. Keith Williams There are several myths about accident cases and the attorneys that handle them. It is important to keep these myths in
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc KENNETH SUNDERMEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR ELVA ELIZABETH SUNDERMEYER, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SC89318 SSM REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES D/B/A VILLA
No. 13-0427 - John N. Kenney v. Samuel C. Liston LOUGHRY, Justice, dissenting: FILED June 4, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA The object of tort
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
MEMORANDUM From: Mitchell S. Cohen, Esquire Re: Decisions Governing the Issue of Secondary Exposure Asbestos Cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and States of New Jersey and New York Date: 11 November
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: NICHOLAS C. DEETS Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT A. DURHAM State Farm Litigation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE
PROF. M H CASSIMJEE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE, P M BURG METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL COMPLEX & MIDLANDS REGION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT Estimated that medical errors 8 th leading cause
Open Your Eyes Wrongful Death and Survival Actions In Maryland & the District of Columbia A Wrongful Death Action What is a wrongful death lawsuit? In the context of a medical malpractice lawsuit, wrongful
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 1 (24.1.62) Health Law Update By: Roger R. Clayton, Mark D. Hansen, and J.
SOG/DGL, CH, JB Page 1 of 6 Automobile Negligence Lawsuits Who Is Sued? Driver the driver is the person whose negligence gives rise to the liability. The person suing must prove that the driver negligently
SYLLABUS FOR MARITIME PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH Spring 2016 PROFFESSOR JOHN F. UNGER 1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES The objectives of this course are to teach the substantive law of the subject matter integrated
Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim 2 Contents Introduction... 3 Important things that you must do... 3 In The Beginning... 4 Mitigating your loss... 4 Time limits... 4 Who can claim?... 4 Whose
Present: All the Justices LINDA M. ST. GEORGE v. Record No. 960876 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 18, 1997 ROBERT J. PARISER, M.D., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Marc
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2000-CA-00099-SCT KIMBERLY KNIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR DAUGHTER, BRANDE SKINNER v. LISA GIBSON McKEE, M.D. AND RICK MARTIN, M.D. DATE OF JUDGMENT:
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 firstname.lastname@example.org Schiff Hardin LLP.
5.50E PRE-EXISTING CONDITION INCREASED RISK/LOSS OF CHANCE PROXIMATE CAUSE (10/2014) NOTE TO JUDGE In a series of cases, including Fosgate v. Corona, 66 N.J. 268 (1974); Evers v. Dollinger, 95 N.J. 399
GWid: EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213 Section 13 -- Siegel Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS 1. This is an open book examination. You may use any written materials that you have brought with you (including
HOW MUCH MONEY IS MY SLIP AND FALL CASE WORTH? Knowledge of the Value of Your Claim Can Help You to Determine If a Settlement Offer Is Reasonable and Appropriate Given the Circumstances of the Fall and
NURSING HOME CARE ACT INTRODUCTION The Nursing Home Care Act, 210 ILCS 45/1, et seq., was adopted amid concern over reports of inadequate, improper and degrading treatment of patients in nursing homes.
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 8: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. Outline the elements of the tort of negligence. The elements of the tort
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
Trying Damages in the Wrongful Death Case of an Adult Child By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan When a young worker, who is married, with three children and who is earning $100,000 per year, dies after falling
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULES & BI/PD STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS This survey of state laws is a quick reference guide that should only be used as a starting point in researching the applicable law to a given
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
Medical Malpractice BAD DOCTORS G. Randall Green, MD, JD St. Joseph s Hospital Health Center Syracuse, New York The nature of the crisis US not in a medical malpractice litigation crisis US in a medical
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH6HUYLFH Number: 200121031 Release Date: 5/25/2001 Index No.: 104.03-00 Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20224 Person to Contact: Telephone Number: Refer Reply To: CC:ITA:1 PLR-122136-00
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances
Law and Veterinary Medicine Malpractice November 30, 2006 Paul Waldau, D.Phil., J.D. a little refreshment Making sure you re clear on the contract-tort distinction and why it is so important in the legal
BAD FAITH INSTRUCTIONS Introduction These instructions are not materially changed from RAJI (CIVIL) 4th. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA EVELYN BARLOW, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SAMUEL EDWARD BARLOW and EVELYN BARLOW, individually, Petitioner, v. S.C. Case No.: SC02-796 Lower Ct. Case No.:
I. Synopsis WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL LIABILITY & PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR STEVEN M. PAVSNER SYLLABUS The objective of the seminar, Medical Liability and Public Health, is to
5.51 LEGAL MALPRACTICE (Approved 6/79) CHARGE 5.51A Page 1 of 9 A. General Duty Owing An action brought against an attorney alleging negligence in the practice of law is referred to as a malpractice action.
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
Do You Have a Case? Truck Accident ebooklet Andrew Miller 201 South 3rd Street Logansport, IN 46947 P: (574) 722-6676 www.starrausten.com Disclaimer No attempt is made to establish an attorney-client relationship
21 st Annual Health Law Institute 2015-8635 March 13, 2015 Session #2 10:30 am 12:00 noon The End of Malpractice Litigation? Improving Care and Communications to Reduce Risk Charles J. Chulack, III, Esq.
The Estate of a Minor Child in a Child Death Case Thomas R. Ireland Department of Economics University of Missouri-St. Louis 8001 Natural Bridge Road St. Louis, MO 63121 Tel: 314/516-5558 Fax: 314/516-5352
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.