Flashcards Studio

Mel visited a clinic after sudden vision changes. The physician negligently failed to order a standard imaging test. Expert testimony shows that, with the test and immediate treatment, there was a 70 percent likelihood Mel's optic-nerve damage would have been prevented. Without treatment, there was a 60 percent likelihood the same damage would occur. The diagnosis was made three days later, after the damage became permanent.
Mel seeks damages for permanent loss of vision in one eye, future treatment, and lost earnings. The physician argues that Mel cannot prove actual cause because the condition itself sometimes causes permanent damage even with proper care. The physician also argues that Mel's claimed future treatment costs are speculative because doctors have recommended monitoring but have not yet scheduled another surgery.
Analyze actual causation and recoverable damages under the traditional negligence approach. Include any causation or damages limits that the court should consider.