The Impact of Gooding on Actions for Malpractice in the Treatment of Malignant Disease

Mr. Gooding passed away in a hospital after the emergency room staff failed to provide him with proper care. His wife sued the hospital for negligence. The court ruled in favor of the hospital because even with proper treatment, Mr. Gooding’s chances of survival would have been very low. The Supreme Court said that in order to win a medical malpractice case, Mr. Gooding had to show that the doctor’s negligence made it more likely than not that he would have survived if the doctor had not been negligent. Just having a decreased chance of survival is not enough to win a case.
In Mr. Gooding’s case, the issue was whether the doctor’s negligence affected his chance of being cured, not just surviving with the disease.
When it comes to malignant diseases, there are different situations. Sometimes, negligence can cause a patient to lose the chance of being cured. Other times, negligence can lead to the patient dying prematurely, or it can reduce the patient’s life expectancy even further. In Mezrah v. Bevis, a doctor failed to diagnose breast cancer, and it was established that if not for the negligence, the cancer would probably have been cured. The court ruled in favor of the patient, citing a previous case. This shows that when the initial cure is probable and negligence leads to the loss of that probability, the patient can receive damages. However, it’s not always certain if this ruling will apply in similar situations. In the case of Swain v. Curry, a patient’s breast cancer treatment was delayed, leading to a lower chance of survival. The court ruled in favor of the patient, allowing the case to go to a jury for a decision. This case is important because it did not explicitly reference a previous legal decision, and it is unclear how that decision will be applied in similar cases in the future. If a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness and then dies because of someone’s negligence, the question is whether the person’s chance of surviving for a certain period of time (like five years) should determine whether their family can sue for wrongful death. If the person had a low chance of surviving for a long time, they might not be able to sue, even if their death could have been prevented with proper care. But if they had a higher chance of surviving for a shorter period of time, their family might be able to sue if the negligence caused their death. In Williams v. Bay Hospital, Inc., a patient’s cancer was not diagnosed, and she died sooner than she would have with proper treatment. The court said her family couldn’t sue for wrongful death because she probably wouldn’t have survived even with treatment.

In Tappan v. Florida Medical Center, Inc., a man died of cancer and the court said his family couldn’t sue for wrongful death because he probably wouldn’t have lived much longer even with proper treatment.

In Green v. Goldberg, a woman with breast cancer might have lived 10 more years with proper treatment, so her family was allowed to sue for wrongful death.

So basically, if a person would have survived longer with proper treatment, their family might be able to sue for wrongful death. In a case where a patient’s life expectancy was already poor due to a serious illness, the court dismissed her claim for negligence against her physician. The court found that the negligence did not significantly reduce her life expectancy beyond what was already expected. This means that even with proper treatment, her life expectancy was still short, so the negligence did not make a big difference. The decision was based on the patient’s inability to prove that the negligence caused a further reduction in her life expectancy. This shows that in cases where a patient’s prognosis is already poor, it may be difficult to recover damages for negligence. In the case of Gooding, it was established that in a medical emergency, a patient can be abandoned if an expert estimates their chance of survival to be very low. This decision has raised ethical concerns, as it essentially allows for the abandonment of patients with a short life expectancy. It seems that the law should place more value on these patients’ lives, rather than less. The author, Dr. Cyril Toker, is a former professor of pathology and a lawyer. This article was written on behalf of the Trial Lawyers Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-impact-of-gooding-on-actions-for-malpractice-in-the-treatment-of-malignant-disease/