Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Smith v. Providence Health & Services | 393 P.3d 1106 (2017)
A patient presented with stroke symptoms multiple times, but the doctors who treated him failed to take proper steps to follow up on his complaints. By the time it was confirmed that the patient had suffered a stroke, substantial brain damage had already occurred. Oregon’s highest court considered whether the patient could recover for the small chance of a much better medical outcome that was lost because of the doctors’ negligence in Smith versus Providence Health and Services.
On a Friday afternoon, Joseph Smith began experiencing visual problems, confusion, slurred speech, and headache. Worried that he might be having a stroke, Smith went to an emergency room operated by Providence Health and Services. The emergency room doctor, Linda Desitter, concluded that Smith’s symptoms were caused by taking a sleep aid, told him to see an eye doctor, and discharged him. On Saturday night, Smith returned to the emergency room with the same symptoms. This time, Doctor Desitter prescribed Vicodin before discharging Smith, but she never advised him to take aspirin. On Monday, Smith saw another doctor, Michael Harris, for a follow-up appointment. Doctor Harris ordered an M R I but, like Doctor Desitter, never advised Smith to take aspirin. When an M R I was finally done at the end of the week, it revealed substantial brain damage from a stroke. Smith’s stroke-related injuries were both permanent and severe.
Smith sued for medical malpractice, naming both doctors, their medical practice groups, and Providence as defendants. Smith alleged that the defendants were negligent for, among other things, failing to conduct a thorough physical and neurological exam, failing to expedite an M R I, and failing to start him on aspirin. Smith further alleged that as a result of the defendants’ negligence, he lost a thirty-three percent chance of a much better outcome with reduced or no stroke symptoms. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that Oregon law doesn’t allow recovery for loss of chance. The trial court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. Smith appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
