Case brief summary
In a medical malpractice death case, a patient's lost chance of survival, even under 50 percent, counts as a real injury a jury can award money for, if the lost chance was significant.
Facts
A 19 year old woman died after childbirth from a rare complication. Her expert said she would have had a 37.5 percent survival chance if doctors had placed an IV line, which they failed to do.
Procedural history
The trial court dismissed the case, saying the family needed to show a more than 50 percent survival chance. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling they only needed to show some lost chance, so the case could go to trial.
Issue
Can a family win a wrongful death case by showing the patient lost less than a 50 percent chance of survival, instead of proving she probably would have lived with proper care?
Holding
Yes, the Court ruled the case should go to trial, finding that losing a significant chance of survival, 37.5 percent here, is itself a real injury deserving compensation.
Reasoning
Patients seek treatment to improve their odds, even below 50 percent, so doctors should be liable for carelessly destroying that chance. Treating survival as all or nothing would unfairly excuse doctors whenever the odds were already low.
Opinions
Majority (Levin): Losing a substantial chance of survival, even under 50 percent, is itself a compensable injury in medical malpractice cases, so the case should go to trial.
Concurrences (Boyle, joined by Cavanagh): Agreed that lost chance of survival can be compensated, but stressed this ruling only applies where the final harm is death, not lesser injuries.
Dissent (Riley, joined by Brickley and Griffin): Disagreed entirely, arguing that allowing recovery for a mere chance of survival abandons the basic requirement that negligence actually caused the harm.