Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med. Group, Inc.
1996 Ohio 375, 76 Ohio St. 3d 483 (1996)
Rule of Law:
Ohio recognizes a claim for loss of chance in medical malpractice wrongful death actions, allowing recovery even if the decedent's initial chance of survival was less than 50%, provided the health care provider's negligence increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Joan Roberts, as executor of Elaine E. Thomas's estate, filed a wrongful death suit against Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Dr. Dipti Shah, Akron City Hospital, and others.
- The suit alleged a seventeen-month delay by the defendants in diagnosing and treating Elaine E. Thomas's lung cancer.
- An amended complaint added claims for loss of support, services, society, and prospective inheritance.
- The parties stipulated, based on plaintiff's expert witness, that Elaine E. Thomas would have had a twenty-eight percent (28%) chance of survival had she received proper and timely care.
Procedural Posture:
- Joan Roberts, as executor of the estate of Elaine E. Thomas, filed a wrongful death suit against Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Dipti Shah, M.D., Akron City Hospital, and others, in a trial court.
- Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent's 28% chance of survival meant the plaintiff could not establish proximate causation under Ohio's existing law.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, relying on Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc. (1971), which rejected the loss-of-chance theory.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a discretionary appeal to hear the cause.
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 Ohio recognize a claim for the loss of a less-than-fifty-percent chance of recovery or survival in a medical malpractice wrongful death action, thereby modifying the traditional "more likely than not" causation standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
Yes, Ohio recognizes a claim for the loss of a less-than-even chance of recovery or survival in medical malpractice wrongful death actions. The Court overrules its prior decision in Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc., which adhered to an "all-or-nothing" approach to causation that often unjustly deprived plaintiffs of recovery where a physician was negligent but causation could not be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court adopts the approach found in Section 323 of the Restatement of Torts, recognizing that a health care provider should not benefit from the uncertainty created by their own negligence when they have increased the risk of harm to a patient. This shift ensures patients who have had their chances of survival or recovery reduced by negligence are compensated proportionally, aligning Ohio with the majority of states on this issue and promoting diligent medical practice.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Moyer, C.J.
Yes, Ohio should abandon the "all-or-nothing" rule of Cooper, but the majority opinion goes too far by extending the loss-of-chance doctrine beyond wrongful death cases to include "injury cases" (slower/less complete recovery) where a plaintiff argues recovery was slower or less complete due to negligence. Chief Justice Moyer believes this expansion creates a new common-law cause of action unrelated to the wrongful death issue presented and risks confusion, inequity, and excessive litigation, despite the majority's disclaimer that its decision is limited in scope.
Dissenting - Cook, J.
No, the majority's decision to recognize the loss-of-chance theory breaks with sound legal principles and time-honored concepts of assessing fault and causation in tort law. Justice Cook argues that by awarding damages based on a reduced possibility of survival rather than actual death proven by a preponderance, the court departs from traditional tort requirements. Furthermore, she contends that the majority's inclusion of recovery for "injury or death" and "longer health span" does not fit within the statutory parameters of R.C. Chapter 2125, which provides a wrongful death cause of action for the exclusive benefit of surviving family members, not the decedent or for "injury" generally.
Dissenting - Stratton, J.
No, the Supreme Court should not abandon Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, as it was firmly grounded in principles of tort and causation. Justice Stratton asserts that recognizing a cause of action for "loss of chance" in a wrongful death context, which is a statutory right, constitutes judicial overreach. Such a fundamental change, creating a new right of recovery, should be enacted by the legislature rather than by judicial decision.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant shift in Ohio's medical malpractice jurisprudence, easing the burden of proof for causation in "loss of chance" scenarios. By overruling Cooper and adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, the Court allows plaintiffs to recover even when a defendant's negligence reduces a less-than-even chance of survival or recovery, provided the negligence increased the risk of harm. This decision acknowledges the inherent difficulties in proving traditional "but-for" causation in cases where patients already face grim prognoses and incentivizes healthcare providers to exercise due care even when a patient's chances are slim. However, as noted by the dissents, it also raises questions about the scope of judicial power in creating new causes of action and its interplay with statutory wrongful death claims.
