Court Opinion

ID: 9515054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:53:25.999887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:24.335848
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 17.] The issue in this case is whether Jorgenson had an opportunity for a better result during the time of his treatment by Vener. The New Mexico Supreme Court discussed the lost chance doctrine in Alberts v. Schultz and held as follows:
The injury is the lost opportunity of a better result, not the harm caused by the presenting problem. It is not the physical harm itself, but rather the lost chance of avoiding the physical harm .... [t]he causal connection between the negligence and the resultant injury must be medically provable.
The chance of a better result may be conceptualized as a window of time that existed before the malpractice took place; in that window of time the healthcare provider had an opportunity to timely implement proper medical treatments that would avoid or minimize the occurrence of the injury. Through negligent misdiagnosis, inappropriate therapy, or unnecessary delay, the window of time was closed. The act of malpractice may have immediately shut the window of time, or it may have caused a delay during which the window of time expired. The claim is not for the subsequent injury, but for the fact that it is now too late to do anything to avoid the injury. Correcting the problem is no longer possible....
Rather, the patient must present evidence that the harm for which he or she originally sought treatment — the presenting medical problem — was in fact made worse by the lost chance.
126 N.M. 807, 975 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (N.M.1999).
[¶ 18.] In this case the plaintiff should be allowed to prove that his window of opportunity for a better result was closed due to negligent treatment, which in fact is shown to have made the condition worse. And, therefore, I concur in the majority writing.