Quick Summary
Edith E. Herskovits (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death suit against Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (defendant) for failing to diagnose her husband’s lung cancer timely, which allegedly reduced his chance of survival.
The main issue was whether a reduction in Mr. Herskovits’s statistical chance of survival constituted sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause in a wrongful death lawsuit.
The Supreme Court of Washington concluded that this reduction in chance warranted jury consideration and reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Group Health.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Herskovits (plaintiff) consulted Group Health Hospital (GHH), operated by Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (defendant), with complaints of chest pain and coughing. The physicians at GHH took a chest X-ray but did not perform any further tests and treated Mr. Herskovits with a cough suppressant.
His condition persisted, leading Mr. Herskovits to seek a second opinion from Dr. Jonathan Ostrow, who diagnosed him with advanced lung cancer. Despite undergoing surgery to remove the cancerous lung, Mr. Herskovits died 20 months later.
Edith E. Herskovits, as the administratrix of her husband’s estate (the Estate) (plaintiff), filed a wrongful death suit against GHH, alleging that their failure to diagnose the cancer in a timely manner reduced Mr. Herskovits’s chance of survival.
Dr. Ostrow testified that with an earlier diagnosis, Mr. Herskovits’s five-year survival rate would have been 39 percent, but due to the delay, it was reduced to 25 percent.
Procedural History
- The Estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Group Health, dismissing the case on the grounds that the Estate could not show that the delayed diagnosis probably caused Mr. Herskovits’s death.
- The Estate appealed the decision to The Supreme Court of Washington.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the reduction in Mr. Herskovits’s statistical chance of survival due to Group Health’s alleged negligence is sufficient to establish proximate cause in a wrongful death lawsuit.
Rule of Law
In cases where medical negligence is alleged to have reduced a patient’s chance of survival, the courts may consider whether the reduction in chance itself can be a factor in determining proximate cause for wrongful death.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered whether a patient with less than a 50 percent chance of survival has a cause of action when a healthcare provider’s negligence reduces their chance of survival by a significant percentage. The majority found that a 14 percent reduction in the chance of survival, from 39 percent to 25 percent, was sufficient evidence to let a jury decide on the issue of proximate cause.
This decision was influenced by similar cases from other jurisdictions and legal commentaries suggesting that when a defendant’s actions have increased the risk of harm by decreasing chances of survival, this increased risk can be considered a substantial factor in causing harm.
The court argued that defendants should not be absolved from liability simply because the patient had less than an even chance of survival before their negligent act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated the cause of action, allowing the issue of proximate cause to be considered by a jury based on the reduction in Mr. Herskovits’s chance of survival.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Brachtenbach dissented, arguing that statistical chances alone should not be sufficient to prove proximate cause without further evidence connecting the statistics to the facts of the case.
Justice Dolliver also dissented, favoring the view that proof of a reduced chance of survival is not adequate to establish proximate cause when the survival rate is already below 50 percent.
Key Takeaways
- The court determined that a significant reduction in the chance of survival due to medical negligence can constitute sufficient evidence for proximate cause in wrongful death cases.
- The court’s decision allows patients with less than an even chance of survival to still seek redress for medical negligence that further reduces their chances.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What determines if a medical professional’s action constitutes negligence?
Negligence is determined by the breach of the duty of care a medical professional owes to their patients. This involves a failure to act in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. To establish negligence, there must be a duty owed, a breach of that duty, causation linking the breach to the harm, and resulting damages.
- For example: A doctor who disregards evident symptoms of a serious condition, such as chest pain and coughing, and fails to conduct necessary diagnostic tests, thus missing a critical early diagnosis and potentially worsening the patient’s prognosis.
How does loss of chance doctrine apply in medical malpractice cases?
The loss of chance doctrine applies when a healthcare provider’s negligence reduces a patient’s chance to recover or survive. It allows for recovery even when the initial chance of survival or recovery was less than 50%, as long as the negligence significantly diminished that chance.
- For example:A patient who had a 40% survival chance from an illness but due to late diagnosis caused by misreading lab results, the chances dropped to 20%, which could be actionable.
In what situations is proximate cause relevant in medical negligence cases?
Proximate cause is relevant in determination if negligent actions are closely enough connected to an injury to warrant liability. It is particularly examined when there’s an argument that the damages occurred were part of the natural course of the underlying condition or illness rather than as a result of negligence.
- For example:An instance where incorrect medication was administered, leading to adverse side effects that exacerbated an existing medical condition or delayed the patient’s recovery process.
References
Was this case brief helpful?