Opinion ID: 602861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss of Chance

Text: 30 The Louisiana Supreme Court has described that state's loss of chance doctrine as follows: 31 The medical malpractice plaintiff does not have the unreasonable burden of proving that the patient would have lived if the defendant had not been negligent. However, the plaintiff does have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conduct denied the patient a chance of survival. 32 32 The Broussards complain that the district court erroneously found that nothing could have been done for [Jermaine] that would have saved his life. In support of this argument, they cite the opinions of their two expert physician witnesses that Jermaine had a chance of survival if he had been properly diagnosed and treated. 33 The determination of whether the defendant's conduct denied the patient a chance of survival is a causation issue, and [c]ausation is a question of fact. 33 Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 34 Under the clearly erroneous standard, we may not reverse the district court's findings of fact unless the review of the relevant evidence leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. 35 34 In its findings of fact, the district court stated: The court accepts the testimony of Dr. William Dalsey that Jermaine Broussard's injuries were so severe and so extensive that nothing could have been done for him that would have saved his life. The district court made no mention of the contrary opinions of the Broussards' expert witnesses. Giving due regard for the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot say that the district court's finding on this fact issue is clearly erroneous.