Loss of chance doctrine

An emerging theory of medical malpractice liability

Timothy Craig Allen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditional medical malpractice law requires plaintiffs, to be successful in a lawsuit, to show proximate cause, that is, to prove that the defendant physician's actions more likely than not caused the patient's injuries. The loss of chance doctrine views a person's prospect for surviving a serious medical condition as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than 50%. The loss of chance doctrine is controversial, and both proponents and opponents have strong arguments regarding courts' instituting it in medical malpractice cases. These arguments, and the potential future of the theory in medical malpractice cases, are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)172-174
Number of pages3
JournalPathology Case Reviews
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Legal Liability
Malpractice
Physicians
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Loss of chance doctrine : An emerging theory of medical malpractice liability. / Allen, Timothy Craig.

In: Pathology Case Reviews, Vol. 17, No. 4, 07.2012, p. 172-174.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Allen, Timothy Craig. / Loss of chance doctrine : An emerging theory of medical malpractice liability. In: Pathology Case Reviews. 2012 ; Vol. 17, No. 4. pp. 172-174.
@article{7fc79dd32f9a46348db614fac36fac18,
title = "Loss of chance doctrine: An emerging theory of medical malpractice liability",
abstract = "Traditional medical malpractice law requires plaintiffs, to be successful in a lawsuit, to show proximate cause, that is, to prove that the defendant physician's actions more likely than not caused the patient's injuries. The loss of chance doctrine views a person's prospect for surviving a serious medical condition as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than 50{\%}. The loss of chance doctrine is controversial, and both proponents and opponents have strong arguments regarding courts' instituting it in medical malpractice cases. These arguments, and the potential future of the theory in medical malpractice cases, are discussed.",
author = "Allen, {Timothy Craig}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/PCR.0b013e3182675060",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "172--174",
journal = "Pathology Case Reviews",
issn = "1082-9784",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Loss of chance doctrine

T2 - An emerging theory of medical malpractice liability

AU - Allen, Timothy Craig

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - Traditional medical malpractice law requires plaintiffs, to be successful in a lawsuit, to show proximate cause, that is, to prove that the defendant physician's actions more likely than not caused the patient's injuries. The loss of chance doctrine views a person's prospect for surviving a serious medical condition as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than 50%. The loss of chance doctrine is controversial, and both proponents and opponents have strong arguments regarding courts' instituting it in medical malpractice cases. These arguments, and the potential future of the theory in medical malpractice cases, are discussed.

AB - Traditional medical malpractice law requires plaintiffs, to be successful in a lawsuit, to show proximate cause, that is, to prove that the defendant physician's actions more likely than not caused the patient's injuries. The loss of chance doctrine views a person's prospect for surviving a serious medical condition as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than 50%. The loss of chance doctrine is controversial, and both proponents and opponents have strong arguments regarding courts' instituting it in medical malpractice cases. These arguments, and the potential future of the theory in medical malpractice cases, are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864183972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864183972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PCR.0b013e3182675060

DO - 10.1097/PCR.0b013e3182675060

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 172

EP - 174

JO - Pathology Case Reviews

JF - Pathology Case Reviews

SN - 1082-9784

IS - 4

ER -