Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencetestimonymalpracticelease
plaintiffdefendantnegligencetestimonymalpracticelease

Related Cases

Fitz v. Toungate, 419 S.W.2d 708
View Case »
Lewis v. Hiatt, 683 So.2d 937
View Case »
In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases, 704 Fed.Appx. 78
View Case »
Petrello v. White, 533 F.3d 110
View Case »
Meier v. Meyer, 153 Neb. 222, 43 N.W.2d 502
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McKellips v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 741 P.2d 467, 81 A.L.R.4th 467, 1987 OK 69

Facts

Reverend Allan David McKellips was brought to the emergency room of Saint Francis Hospital, where he was misdiagnosed with gastritis and released. He later suffered a cardiac arrest and died. His widow and children filed a wrongful death suit against the hospital and the attending physician, claiming negligence in the diagnosis and treatment. An expert testified that the decedent's chances of survival would have been significantly improved had he been properly diagnosed and treated.

Reverend Allan David McKellips was brought to the emergency room of Saint Francis Hospital, where he was misdiagnosed with gastritis and released.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Oklahoma recognizes the loss of chance doctrine in medical malpractice cases and whether expert testimony regarding the improvement of a patient's chances is sufficient to establish causation.

The main legal issues were whether Oklahoma recognizes the loss of chance doctrine in medical malpractice cases and whether expert testimony regarding the improvement of a patient's chances is sufficient to establish causation.

Rule

The court adopted the loss of chance doctrine, allowing a plaintiff to establish causation by showing that the defendant's conduct caused a substantial reduction in the patient's chance of recovery or survival, irrespective of statistical evidence.

The court adopted the loss of chance doctrine, allowing a plaintiff to establish causation by showing that the defendant's conduct caused a substantial reduction in the patient's chance of recovery or survival, irrespective of statistical evidence.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the expert's testimony indicated that the decedent's chances of survival would have been significantly improved with proper treatment. The court emphasized that the question of proximate cause should be determined by the jury, especially in cases where the plaintiff's chance of survival was diminished due to the defendant's negligence.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the expert's testimony indicated that the decedent's chances of survival would have been significantly improved with proper treatment.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the loss of chance doctrine applies in Oklahoma, allowing for recovery based on the percentage of chance lost due to the defendant's negligence. The court affirmed that damages should be limited to those proximately caused by the defendant's breach of duty.

The court concluded that the loss of chance doctrine applies in Oklahoma, allowing for recovery based on the percentage of chance lost due to the defendant's negligence.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed as the court recognized the loss of chance doctrine, allowing them to establish causation based on the reduction of the decedent's chance of survival.

The plaintiffs prevailed as the court recognized the loss of chance doctrine, allowing them to establish causation based on the reduction of the decedent's chance of survival.

You must be