AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case involves a wrongful death lawsuit arising from alleged medical negligence. The deceased, a nuclear physicist, underwent periodic medical examinations as part of his employment. A lung lesion was detected in 1985 but was deemed benign, with recommendations for follow-up. In 1989, during a medical examination conducted by a physician's assistant, no chest x-rays were taken, and no advice was provided regarding the lesion. In 1990, the deceased was diagnosed with large cell carcinoma and passed away in 1991. The plaintiff alleged that the failure to order follow-up x-rays in 1989 constituted negligence that reduced the deceased's chance of survival (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Baer v. Regents of Univ. of California, 118 N.M. 685, 884 P.2d 841: The case was previously before the Court of Appeals on a motion for summary judgment, where the facts were reviewed in favor of the plaintiff (para 2).
• District Court, Los Alamos County: The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, finding insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause between the alleged negligence and the deceased's death (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the defendant's negligence deprived the deceased of a measurable chance of survival, even if the chance was less than 50%. Claimed there was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of proximate cause to a jury (paras 5, 19).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the deceased's cancer would have been detectable by an x-ray in 1989 or that earlier detection would have increased his chance of survival. Argued that proximate cause was not established (paras 4-5, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether a plaintiff can recover damages for a "loss of a chance" of survival when the chance of recovery was less than 50% (para 6).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause between the defendant's alleged negligence and the deceased's loss of a chance of survival (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to direct a verdict for the defendant (para 22).

Reasons

Per Bosson J. (Bustamante J. concurring, Flores J. concurring in result only):

The Court recognized the "loss of a chance" doctrine, which allows recovery for the loss of a measurable chance of survival due to negligence, even if the chance was less than 50%. This approach redefines the injury as the loss of a chance rather than the entire loss of life, aligning with modern tort principles and public policy (paras 7-18).

However, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause. Specifically, there was no evidence to a reasonable degree of medical probability that an x-ray in 1989 would have detected the cancer or that earlier detection would have increased the deceased's chance of survival. The plaintiff's expert admitted that such conclusions would be speculative. Without this evidence, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant (paras 19-22).