Opinion ID: 1877633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: lost opportunity doctrine

Text: Defendants brought their summary disposition motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Under that subsection, summary disposition is proper when [e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. In other words, the court must be satisfied ... that `it is impossible for the claim or defense to be supported at trial because of some deficiency which cannot be overcome.' Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp., 433 Mich. 365, 370, 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989), quoting Rizzo v. Kretschmer, 389 Mich. 363, 372, 207 N.W.2d 316 (1973). In making that determination, the court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358, 362, 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996). We review summary disposition decisions de novo. Groncki v. Detroit Edison Co., 453 Mich. 644, 649, 557 N.W.2d 289 (1996).
We address whether the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death. Under Michigan medical malpractice law, as part of its prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. M.C.L. § 600.2912a; M.S.A. § 27A.2912(1); Locke v. Pachtman, 446 Mich. 216, 222, 521 N.W.2d 786 (1994). To establish proximate cause, the plaintiff must prove the existence of both cause in fact and legal cause. Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153, 162-163, 516 N.W.2d 475 (1994). To establish cause in fact, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence from which a jury may conclude that more likely than not,[ [11] ] but for the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred.