## Facts

- Nena J. Falcon, age nineteen, delivered a healthy baby at Memorial Hospital in Monroe, Michigan, under the care of an attending obstetrician.
- Shortly after delivery, she suffered sudden respiratory and cardiac collapse and died within minutes.
- The death was attributed to an amniotic fluid embolism, characterized as rare and generally unpreventable.
- The estate alleged malpractice based on the failure to place an intravenous (IV) line when complications became apparent, delaying delivery of drugs and fluids during resuscitation.
- Plaintiff’s expert opined that timely IV access and treatment would have provided approximately a 37.5% opportunity of survival.
- The dispositive dispute centered on whether destruction of a less-than-even chance of survival constitutes a compensable injury and satisfies causation in a wrongful-death malpractice action.

## Issues

1. Whether a wrongful-death medical malpractice plaintiff may recover when negligence deprived the patient of a substantial chance of survival that was less than 50%.
2. Whether Michigan causation rules require proof that, but for negligence, the patient more likely than not would have survived, or instead permit recovery for loss of a significant survival opportunity.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that a medical malpractice plaintiff may recover for negligent deprivation of a substantial opportunity to survive even if the chance of survival was under 50%.
- The Court ruled that a rigid “more likely than not” threshold is not required to submit such a claim to the trier of fact when supported by competent expert proof of a substantial lost opportunity.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognition of the loss-of-opportunity theory.

## Legal Principles

- In medical malpractice wrongful-death actions, the loss of a substantial opportunity to avoid death can be treated as a compensable injury distinct from proving that negligence probably caused death in an all-or-nothing sense.
- Causation may be satisfied by showing that the defendant’s negligence was a cause of the patient’s lost opportunity for survival, meaning it materially reduced survival prospects in a non-trivial way.
- A less-than-even chance is not automatically insufficient; the chance must be substantial and supported by expert testimony rather than speculation.
- The wrongful-death framework does not compel a categorical >50% causation requirement where negligence eliminated or significantly reduced a meaningful chance of survival.
- Damages may be assessed by the trier of fact in a manner that reflects the magnitude of the lost opportunity rather than awarding or denying recovery solely on whether survival was more probable than not.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court recognized that negligent destruction of a substantial, medically supported chance of survival—though less than 50%—is actionable in wrongful-death medical malpractice, allowing the claim to proceed to factfinding on causation and damages tied to the lost opportunity.


Falcon v. Mem’l Hosp., 436 Mich. 443, 462 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 1990)