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 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Columbia Rio Grande Regional Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawleygreen2 sentences2008The Texas Supreme Court “has spoken with great clarity on the loss of chance rule, leaving no room for disagreement: recovery in a medical malpractice case cannot be had if, at the time of the alleged negligence, the patient had a pre-existing condition from which the chance of survival was [fifty] percent or less.” Columbia Rio Grande Reg’l Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley, 188 S.W.3d 838, 863 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2006, pet. granted). 2008The Texas Supreme Court "has spoken with great clarity on the loss of chance rule, leaving no room for disagreement: recovery in a medical malpractice case cannot be had if, at the time of the alleged negligence, the patient had a pre-existing condition from which the chance of survival was [fifty] percent or less." Columbia Rio Grande Regional Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley, 188 S.W.3d 838, 863 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. granted). | 2 | 2 |
Hodgkins v. Bryangreen2 sentences2008Hodgkins v. Bryan, 99 S.W.3d 669, 675 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 2008Hodgkins, 99 S.W.3d at 674 . | 2 | 2 |
Parrott v. Caskeygreen2 sentences2008The majority, as well as Rowan and Niese, cite the Beaumont Court of Appeals’ opinion in Parrott v. Caskey, 873 S.W.2d 142, 151 (TexApp.-Beaumont 1994, no writ), in support of their contention that Rowan and Niese’s claims are not barred by the loss of chance doctrine. 2008The majority, as well as Rowan and Niese, cite the Beaumont Court of Appeals' opinion in Parrott v. Caskey, 873 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1994, no writ), in support of their contention that Rowan and Niese's claims are not barred by the loss of chance doctrine. | 2 | 2 |
Scafidi v. Seilergreen2 sentences2001In discussing the relaxed causation approach, the Court quoted in footnote three, language from Scafidi v. Seiler , 119 N.J. 93, 109 , 574 A.2d 398, 406 (1990). 2001In discussing the relaxed causation approach, the Court quoted in footnote three, language from Scafidi v. Seiler , 119 N.J. 93, 109 , 574 A.2d 398, 406 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Deetsgreen2 sentences1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court"). 1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court”). | 2 | 2 |
Park Place Hospital v. Estate of Milogreen2 sentences2006See Milo, 909 S.W.2d at 511 ; Kramer, 858 S.W.2d at 400 . 2006See Milo, 909 S.W.2d at 511 ; Kramer, 858 S.W.2d at 400 . | 1 | 1 |
Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauergreen2 sentences2006See Mandlbauer, 34 S.W.3d at 912 . 2006See Mandlbauer, 34 S.W.3d at 912 . | 1 | 1 |
Colonial Savings Ass'n v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1993While this section is the law in Texas, see Colonial Savings Ass'n v. Taylor, 544 S.W.2d 116, 119-20 (Tex.1976), it does not determine or suggest the appropriate standard of causation. 1993While this section is the law in Texas, see Colonial Savings Ass’n v. Taylor, 544 S.W.2d 116, 119-20 (Tex.1976), it does not determine or suggest the appropriate standard of causation. | 1 | 1 |
Kramer v. Lewisville Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court"). 1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court”). | 1 | 1 |
Fennell v. Southern Maryland Hospital Center, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Fennell, 580 A.2d at 213 . 1993See Fennell, 580 A.2d at 213 . | 1 | 1 |
Daugert v. Pappasgreen2 sentences1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). 1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Las Vegas Medical Centergreen2 sentences1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). 1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
Valdez v. Lyman-Roberts Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Valdez, 638 S.W.2d at 114-16 ; Bellaire, 510 S.W.2d at 97-98 . 1993See Valdez, 638 S.W.2d at 114-16 ; Bellaire, 510 S.W.2d at 97-98 . | 1 | 1 |
Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard" cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable"); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). 1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard” cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat’l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable”); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). | 1 | 1 |
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heinegreen2 sentences1993See Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992); Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1098-99 (1938). 1993See Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992); Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1098-99 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owengreen2 sentences1993See Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992); Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1098-99 (1938). 1993See Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992); Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1098-99 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Daugert v. Pappasgreen2 sentences1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). 1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kramer v. Lewisville Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1994However sympathetic those cases may be, Kramer specifically and clearly refuses to recognize or adopt the loss of chance doctrine as a part of the common law of Texas. 858 S.W.2d at 403 . 1994However sympathetic those cases may be, Kramer specifically and clearly refuses to recognize or adopt the loss of chance doctrine as a part of the common law of Texas. 858 S.W.2d at 403 . | 2 | 1994–2006 |
Dumas v. Cooney
green
2 sentences1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). 1993See Perez, 805 P.2d at 599 n. 3 (Steffen, J., dissenting); Dumas, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 593 ; but see Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254 , 704 P.2d 600, 605 (1985) (en banc). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard" cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable"); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). 1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard” cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat’l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable”); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Harry J. Hicks, Administrator of the Estate of Carol Greitens, Deceased v. United States
green
2 sentences1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard" cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable"); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). 1993While the doctrine was first recognized in the context of maritime "man overboard” cases, see, e.g., Gardner v. Nat’l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 310 F.2d 284 , 287 (4th Cir.1962), the first sign that the doctrine might be applied in the medical malpractice context came in Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966) ("If there was any substantial possibility of survival and the defendant has destroyed it, he is answerable”); see also Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hosp., 169 S.E.2d 563, 569 (Va.1969). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic
green
2 sentences1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court"). 1993See Kramer, 831 S.W.2d at 50 ; Karl v. Oaks Minor Emergency Clinic, 826 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (motion for rehearing pending); Crawford v. Deets, 828 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing to recognize the loss of chance doctrine because instituting a new cause of action "is better left to the legislature or the supreme court”). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bellaire General Hospital, Inc. v. Campbell
green
2 sentences1993See Valdez, 638 S.W.2d at 114-16 ; Bellaire, 510 S.W.2d at 97-98 . 1993See Valdez, 638 S.W.2d at 114-16 ; Bellaire, 510 S.W.2d at 97-98 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.