Smith v. Providence Health & Services

393 P.3d 1106 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On Friday afternoon, P, then 49 years old, went to the emergency room and arrived less than two hours after he began experiencing visual difficulties, confusion, slurred speech, and headache. P was worried that he might be having a stroke. Dessiter (D) did not perform a complete physical examination or thorough neurological examination. P underwent a CT scan, which showed no bleeding in his brain. A radiologist recommended that, if symptoms persisted, an MRI should be considered. Dessiter (D) concluded that P's symptoms were caused by taking a sleep aid, told him he needed to have his eyes examined, and discharged him. She did not advise him to take aspirin. On Saturday night, when Dessiter (D) was again working, P returned to the Providence emergency room. P reported that the pain in his head had significantly increased and he was still having visual problems. Dessiter (D) did not perform a complete physical examination and did not perform a thorough neurological examination. She diagnosed P with a mild headache and visual disturbance and gave him a prescription for Vicodin. She again advised him to see an eye doctor. She did not advise plaintiff to take aspirin. On Monday, went to Harris (D), a family practice physician. Harris (D) ordered an MRI, but not on an expedited basis. He did not advise P to take aspirin. When an MRI was done at the end of the week, it showed that P had suffered substantial brain damage from a stroke. P now has slurred speech, limitations on his ability to perform activities of daily living, and cognitive impairments that prevent him from working. P sued Ds alleging a loss-of-chance negligence theory. P alleged that they were negligent in failing to conduct thorough physical and neurological examinations, to order an MRI, to start P on aspirin, and to take various other actions. P claimed he lost a chance for treatment which, 33 percent of the time, provides a much better outcome, with reduced or no stroke symptoms. Ds moved to dismiss in that Oregon law does not permit recovery for loss of chance. The motion was granted and affirmed by the court of appeals. P appealed.