Facts
- Belinda Joyce Lord suffered a broken neck in a July 22, 1996 automobile accident and was treated at Lakes Region General Hospital by Dr. James Lovett and Dr. Samuel Aldridge.
- Lord alleged the doctors negligently misdiagnosed her spinal cord injury and, as a result, failed to properly immobilize her and failed to administer steroid therapy.
- She claimed the negligence aggravated her preexisting injury by causing her to lose the opportunity for a substantially better recovery, leaving significant residual paralysis, weakness, and sensitivity.
- Before trial, the court allowed a pretrial offer of proof on causation and damages.
- Lord proffered expert testimony that negligence deprived her of a substantially better recovery, but conceded the expert could not quantify the degree of the lost chance in numerical terms.
- The trial court dismissed the case, concluding it was predicated on a “loss of opportunity” theory not recognized in New Hampshire and that causation proof was insufficient.
Issues
- Whether New Hampshire recognizes a medical malpractice claim for “loss of opportunity” where negligent treatment aggravates a preexisting injury by reducing the likelihood of a better outcome.
- Whether an offer of proof alleging a substantial lost opportunity, without numerical quantification, is sufficient to survive dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court recognized “loss of opportunity” as a viable medical malpractice theory for a plaintiff whose preexisting injury or illness is aggravated by negligent care.
- The court adopted a limited recovery model permitting damages for the lost opportunity itself, not for the entire preexisting condition.
- Applying the dismissal standard, the court held Lord’s allegations were reasonably susceptible to a construction that would permit recovery; precise percentage quantification was not required at that stage.
Legal Principles
- A cognizable injury in medical malpractice may include the loss of an opportunity for a better outcome when negligent care aggravates a preexisting injury or illness.
- Under New Hampshire’s approach, the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s negligence more likely than not caused a substantial lost chance of a better recovery.
- Damages are limited to the value of the lost chance, not the full measure of the ultimate disability attributable to the underlying injury.
- On review of dismissal, courts accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and ask whether they are reasonably susceptible of a construction permitting recovery; exact numerical proof of the lost chance is not invariably required at that stage.
Conclusion
New Hampshire recognized medical malpractice recovery for loss of opportunity and limited damages to the lost chance of a better outcome; because Lord’s proffer supported a substantial, causally related lost opportunity, dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.