Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Providence Health & Services - Oregongreen2 sentences2022Thus, Smith establishes that (1) “loss of chance of recovery” is a cognizable injury in a common-law medical negligence claim in Oregon, id. at 458 ; (2) to bring such a claim, “a plaintiff must plead the percentage and quality of his or her loss of chance,” id. at 483 ; and (3) “[a] present adverse medical outcome is an essential element of a common-law medical malpractice claim,” and, in a claim for loss of chance of recovery (unlike in a standard medical malpractice claim, in which the adverse medical outcome is the injury, id. at 483 n 5) the present adverse medical outcome “provides the f 2022Thus, Smith establishes that (1) “loss of chance of recovery” is a cognizable injury in a common-law medical negligence claim in Oregon, id. at 458 ; (2) to bring such a claim, “a plaintiff must plead the percentage and quality of his or her loss of chance,” id. at 483 ; and (3) “[a] present adverse medical outcome is an essential element of a common-law medical malpractice claim,” and, in a claim for loss of chance of recovery (unlike in a standard medical malpractice claim, in which the adverse medical outcome is the injury, id. at 483 n 5) the present adverse medical outcome “provides the f | 1 | 1 |
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc.green2 sentences2018Curtis , 327 Or. at 14 , 956 P.2d 960 ; see also Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc. , 335 Or. 404 , 415, 69 P.3d 710 (2003) (describing Curtis as holding that, "to state a claim for emotional distress damages in a medical malpractice setting not involving physical harm, a plaintiff must plead and prove a standard of care that includes a duty to protect against psychic harm"). 2018Curtis , 327 Or. at 14 , 956 P.2d 960 ; see also Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc. , 335 Or. 404 , 415, 69 P.3d 710 (2003) (describing Curtis as holding that, "to state a claim for emotional distress damages in a medical malpractice setting not involving physical harm, a plaintiff must plead and prove a standard of care that includes a duty to protect against psychic harm"). | 1 | 1 |
Joshi v. Providence Health System of Oregon Corp.green1 sentence2015See Son, 239 Or App at 508 ; see also Joshi, 342 Or at 163-64 . | 1 | 1 |
Son v. Ashland Community Healthcare Servicesgreen1 sentence2015See Son, 239 Or App at 508 ; see also Joshi, 342 Or at 163-64 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. Bispham
green
2 sentences2025Plaintiff has not been exonerated of any crime.” Id. 2025Plaintiff has not been exonerated of any crime.” Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES II
green
2 sentences2022And there is no dispute here that this is a professional negligence claim that invokes the standard of care for physicians set forth at ORS 677.095(1): “A physician licensed to practice medicine or podiatry by the Oregon Medical Board has the duty to use that degree of care, skill and diligence that is used by ordinarily care- ful physicians in the same or similar circumstances in the community of the physician or a similar community.” But a physician does not “operate under a general duty to avoid any emotional harm that foreseeably might result from their conduct.” Curtis v. MRI Imaging Serv 2022And there is no dispute here that this is a professional negligence claim that invokes the standard of care for physicians set forth at ORS 677.095(1): “A physician licensed to practice medicine or podiatry by the Oregon Medical Board has the duty to use that degree of care, skill and diligence that is used by ordinarily care- ful physicians in the same or similar circumstances in the community of the physician or a similar community.” But a physician does not “operate under a general duty to avoid any emotional harm that foreseeably might result from their conduct.” Curtis v. MRI Imaging Serv | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Harris v. Kissling
green
2 sentences2017Citing Harris v. Kissling, 80 Or App 5 , 721 P2d 838 (1986), and distinguishing Joshi , plaintiff argued that Oregon recognizes loss of chance “in medical negligence actions for injuries” and that many other states allow claims for loss of chance. 2017Citing Harris v. Kissling, 80 Or App 5 , 721 P2d 838 (1986), and distinguishing Joshi , plaintiff argued that Oregon recognizes loss of chance “in medical negligence actions for injuries” and that many other states allow claims for loss of chance. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sims v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2017Ultimately, the plaintiff must prove causation by a “reasonable probability.” Sims v. Dixon, 224 Or 45, 48 , 355 P2d 478 (1960). 2017Ultimately, the plaintiff must prove causation by a “reasonable probability.” Sims v. Dixon, 224 Or 45, 48 , 355 P2d 478 (1960). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Zehr v. Haugen
green
2 sentences2017Plaintiff then alleged that, “ [a] s a result of the negligence of [Providence, Dessiter, and Harris], on a more probable than not basis, [plaintiff] lost a chance for treatment which, 33 percent of the time, provides a much better outcome, with reduced or no stroke symptoms.” 2 Plaintiff further alleged that, “[a]s a result of defendants’ negligence and his injuries,” he “lost his ability to work” and “has serious and permanent injuries.” He requested damages “for lost wages or impairment of earning capacity” and “non-economic damages.” In a professional negligence claim, a plaintiff must all 2017Plaintiff then alleged that, “ [a] s a result of the negligence of [Providence, Dessiter, and Harris], on a more probable than not basis, [plaintiff] lost a chance for treatment which, 33 percent of the time, provides a much better outcome, with reduced or no stroke symptoms.” 2 Plaintiff further alleged that, “[a]s a result of defendants’ negligence and his injuries,” he “lost his ability to work” and “has serious and permanent injuries.” He requested damages “for lost wages or impairment of earning capacity” and “non-economic damages.” In a professional negligence claim, a plaintiff must all | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Widing v. ESTATE OF WIDING
neutral
2 sentences1998Affirmed. 1 A related controversy was before us in Widing v. Estate of Glenn A. Widing, 149 Or App 451 , 944 P2d 969 (1997). 2 Under our standard of review of the trial court’s rulings on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. 1998Affirmed. 1 A related controversy was before us in Widing v. Estate of Glenn A. Widing, 149 Or App 451 , 944 P2d 969 (1997). 2 Under our standard of review of the trial court’s rulings on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.