Did Trial Court Err by Refusing to Instruct Jury on Loss of Chance Theory in Medical Malpractice Case?
Where Correct Initial Diagnosis Might Have Prevented Second Stroke Jeffrey Geesaman et al. v. St. Rita’s Medical Center et al., Case nos. 2009-1715 and 2009-2094 3rd District Court of Appeals (Allen County) ISSUE: In a medical malpractice trial, when the plaintiff alleges that a doctor’s substandard care was the proximate cause of a worsening of the plaintiff’s medical condition, and the doctor admits fault but offers evidence that there was less than a 50 percent chance the plaintiff could have avoided a worsening of his condition if he had received a proper initial diagnosis and treatment, does a trial court commit reversible error when it refuses to instruct the jury to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to partial damages based on a “loss of chance” theory of recovery? BACKGROUND: Prior to 1996, Ohio case law barred a medical malpractice plaintiff from making any recovery for damages arising from the negligent diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition if the plaintiff c
