Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Decision  





2 Impact  





3 See also  





4 References  





5 External links  














Cahoon v. Cummings







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Cahoon v. Cummings
Seal of the Supreme Court of Indiana
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
Full case nameJeffrey S. Cahoon, M.D. and Shari A. Kohne and Edward L. Kennedy, Co-Executors of the Estate of Robert W. Kohne, M.D. v. Glessie Joann Cummings, wife of the deceased, William T. Cummings
DecidedSeptember 1, 2000
Citations734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000)
15 Ohio St.3d 384
Case history
Prior action715 N.E.2d 1, 9 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)
Court membership
Judges sittingRandall Shepard
Brent Dickson
Frank Sullivan, Jr.
Theodore Boehm
Robert Rucker
Case opinions
Unanimous opinion by Boehm

Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000), was a case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court that adopted the loss of a chance doctrine for tort liability.[1]

Decision

[edit]

The plaintiff brought a wrongful death action alleging that the defendant doctor negligently failed to diagnose the decedent's esophageal cancer. The trial court instructed the jury to find the defendant liable if the failure to diagnose was deemed a substantial factor in the decedent's death. The jury found for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.[2]

The Supreme Court of Indiana eschewed the substantial factor test for liability because it would unfairly hold doctors liable for the patient's underlying disease and all of the damage it caused. Instead the court adopted the loss of a chance doctrine, which allows recovery if negligence results in a substantially higher probability that harm to the plaintiff will result, even if the probability of harm is already over fifty percent. The court held that the defendants should only be held liable in proportion to the increased chance of harm caused by their negligence, and the case was remanded for a new trial.[3]

Impact

[edit]

Cahoon places Indiana among 24 other states that recognize the loss of a chance doctrine, which has been criticized for unpredictably increasing medical malpractice liability.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 263
  • ^ Henderson, p. 263
  • ^ Henderson, p. 264
  • ^ Loss of chance in medical malpractice: a look at recent developments: the growing acceptance of this doctrine raises difficult public policy issues, as well as concerns for the limits of medical professional liability. Defense Counsel Journal. 1 July 2003.
  • [edit]
  • flag Indiana
  • icon Medicine
  • icon Society

  • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cahoon_v._Cummings&oldid=1234113550"

    Categories: 
    United States negligence case law
    2000 in United States case law
    Indiana state case law
    2000 in Indiana
    Medical malpractice case law
    Hidden categories: 
    Articles with short description
    Short description is different from Wikidata
    Use mdy dates from September 2023
     



    This page was last edited on 12 July 2024, at 17:11 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki