Smith v. Parrott
833 A.2d 843 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action in Vermont, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of an injury that would not otherwise have occurred. The 'loss of chance' doctrine, which would allow recovery for a reduced chance of a better outcome even if causation is not proven to be more likely than not, is not a valid basis for recovery.
Facts:
- On July 31, 1995, Stephen L. Smith awoke with no motor control over his left foot.
- That afternoon, Smith visited his family practitioner, Dr. Thomas Parrott, who diagnosed his condition as a 'dramatic foot drop.'
- Dr. Parrott, noting Smith's history of two prior back surgeries, referred him to a neurosurgeon.
- Eleven days later, Smith was examined by neurosurgeon Dr. Joseph Phillips.
- Dr. Phillips concluded that Smith's condition was permanent and that there was no possibility of any functional recovery.
- Smith subsequently underwent surgery in early September to alleviate pain, but his motor functions did not improve.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen L. Smith filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Thomas Parrott in the Windsor Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Following discovery, Dr. Parrott filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Dr. Parrott argued that Smith had failed to produce evidence showing his alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the permanent injury, as expert testimony indicated Smith's chance of recovery was less than 50% even with immediate treatment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Parrott.
- Smith, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, with Dr. Parrott as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a medical malpractice action, does Vermont law permit a plaintiff to recover damages based on a 'loss of chance' of a better outcome when the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant's negligence, more likely than not, caused the ultimate injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, C.J.
No. Vermont law does not permit recovery under the 'loss of chance' doctrine. The state's medical malpractice statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1908(3), codifies the traditional common law rule requiring a plaintiff to prove that as a proximate result of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff suffered injuries that 'would not otherwise have been incurred.' This requires the plaintiff to establish causation to a 'reasonable probability' or 'reasonable degree of medical certainty,' meaning it was more likely than not (greater than 50%) that the defendant's conduct caused the injury. The 'loss of chance' theory is fundamentally at odds with this settled standard because it would allow recovery even if the injury probably would have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Although the court acknowledges policy arguments in favor of the doctrine, it concludes that adopting such a significant departure from traditional tort law, with its far-reaching implications for healthcare costs and practice, is a policy decision best left to the Legislature.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional 'more likely than not' standard of causation for medical malpractice claims in Vermont, explicitly rejecting the modern 'loss of chance' doctrine that many other jurisdictions have adopted. By refusing to alter the established definition of causation, the court sets a high bar for plaintiffs, especially in cases involving pre-existing conditions or where the chance of a positive outcome was already low. The court's deference to the legislature on this issue demonstrates a commitment to judicial restraint regarding significant policy changes that could impact major industries like healthcare. This ruling effectively closes the door in Vermont for a class of plaintiffs who can show a doctor's negligence reduced their chances of recovery but cannot prove it was the probable cause of their ultimate harm.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Parrott