Matsuyama v. Birnbaum
449 Mass. 1, 890 N.E. 2d 819 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, a physician is liable for negligently reducing a patient's chance of a more favorable outcome, even if that chance was initially less than fifty percent. The loss of chance itself is a compensable injury, with damages calculated proportionally to the percentage of the chance that was lost due to the physician's negligence.
Facts:
- In July 1995, Kimiyoshi Matsuyama, who had several risk factors for gastric cancer, became a patient of Dr. Neil S. Birnbaum, complaining of gastric distress.
- Dr. Birnbaum, despite being aware of Matsuyama's heightened risk factors, diagnosed him with gastrointestinal reflux disease based on a physical examination alone and did not order any diagnostic tests.
- Over the next three years, Matsuyama returned with worsening and additional symptoms, including gastric pain in 1996 and severe stomach pain in 1998.
- During this period, Dr. Birnbaum continued to treat Matsuyama without ordering an endoscopy or other gastrointestinal tests to rule out cancer, and a positive H. pylori test in 1998 did not prompt such testing.
- In May 1999, after Matsuyama presented with epigastric pain, vomiting, and sudden weight loss, Dr. Birnbaum finally ordered tests.
- The tests revealed advanced, infiltrative gastric adenoid carcinoma (stomach cancer).
- Matsuyama began treatment with specialists but died from the cancer in October 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimiyoshi Matsuyama's estate sued Dr. Neil S. Birnbaum and Dedham Medical Associates in the Superior Court for wrongful death and negligence.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a special verdict finding Dr. Birnbaum negligent and his negligence to be a 'substantial contributing factor' in Matsuyama's death.
- The jury awarded $160,000 for pain and suffering.
- For the loss of chance claim, the jury determined full wrongful death damages to be $875,000, found Matsuyama's pre-negligence chance of survival was 37.5%, and awarded $328,125 ($875,000 x 0.375).
- The defendants appealed the resulting judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the defendants' application for direct appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Massachusetts law permit recovery for the 'loss of chance' of survival in a medical malpractice wrongful death action where the defendant physician's negligence deprived the decedent of a less than fifty percent chance of surviving cancer?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
Yes. Massachusetts law permits recovery for the loss of a less-than-even chance of survival in medical malpractice cases because the loss of that chance is itself a cognizable injury. The traditional 'all or nothing' rule, which denies recovery if a patient's pre-negligence chance of survival was below 50.1%, is unjust as it provides a 'blanket release from liability for doctors' and fails to deter negligence or compensate for a real harm. This court recognizes loss of chance not as a new theory of causation, but as a theory of injury; the plaintiff must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician's negligence caused the diminished likelihood of a more favorable outcome. This holding is limited to medical malpractice claims, where the availability of reliable statistical evidence makes such claims less speculative and where the core of the doctor-patient relationship is an expectation of maximizing the patient's chances. The court also holds that wrongful death actions in Massachusetts have common law origins, allowing the law to evolve to recognize this cause of action.
Analysis:
This decision officially adopts the loss of chance doctrine in Massachusetts, joining a growing majority of states and significantly altering medical malpractice liability. It reframes the legal injury from the ultimate harm (death) to the loss of a statistical possibility of a better outcome, thereby allowing recovery for patients who previously would have been barred by the 'all or nothing' rule. The court's characterization of the lost chance as the 'injury' itself, rather than a relaxation of causation standards, is a critical legal distinction that preserves the traditional preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. The limitation of the doctrine to medical malpractice signals a cautious approach, tethering its application to contexts with reliable statistical evidence and a special duty of care.
