Wadsworth v. Sharma, 278 A.3d 1269

Background

Stephanie Wadsworth was diagnosed with Stage IIIC breast cancer in 2006, treated, and had negative scans through 2008; a PET/CT on April 1, 2013 showed a new lesion that Dr. Poornima Sharma reviewed but did not report to the patient or pursue further testing.
A 2016 biopsy after a shoulder injury revealed metastatic breast cancer; Ms. Wadsworth died on June 10, 2017.
Her husband filed survival and wrongful death claims alleging medical negligence and a “loss of chance” to survive or to live longer because of the 2013 missed abnormal scan.
At summary judgment the trial court found the wrongful death claim was a loss-of-chance theory (not recognized in Maryland) and granted judgment for defendants; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held that under CJ § 3-902(a) plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the decedent’s death (i.e., >50% causal likelihood), and Maryland does not recognize loss-of-chance recovery in wrongful death claims.
The record contained expert testimony that metastatic breast cancer is essentially incurable and that Ms. Wadsworth did not have a >50% chance of survival absent the alleged negligence; plaintiff could not meet the preponderance standard as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CJ § 3-902(a) allows recovery based on loss of chance of survival	Wadsworth: the statute allows actions where a wrongful act “causes” death; alleged missed follow-up gave rise to the death and would have extended life ~2.5 years	Sharma: Maryland precedent rejects loss-of-chance in wrongful death; plaintiff must show negligence more likely than not caused death	Court: Loss-of-chance recovery for wrongful death is not recognized in Maryland; plaintiff must prove proximate causation by preponderance
Proper causation/burden of proof in wrongful death claims	Wadsworth: proximate cause satisfied because negligence would have extended survival period (expert testimony)	Sharma: plaintiff must show defendant’s negligence was the probable (i.e., >50%) cause of death	Court: Plaintiff bears burden to prove by preponderance that negligence proximately caused death; traditional proximate-cause rules apply
Role of stare decisis and legislature in adopting loss-of-chance doctrine	Wadsworth (and dissent): the plain statutory text supports recovery where negligence shortened life; if change needed, legislature should decide but precedent doesn’t bar this factual posture	Sharma: prior decisions (Weimer, Fennell) and legislative inaction mean courts should not adopt the doctrine; policy choices belong to Legislature	Court: Adheres to Weimer and Fennell; significant policy decision best left to General Assembly; legislative acquiescence supports existing law
Whether the record facts created a triable issue of causation	Wadsworth: experts opined Ms. Wadsworth would have lived substantially longer but for the missed follow-up	Sharma: undisputed expert opinion showed metastatic disease was sole cause and survival probability was <50% absent negligence	Court: Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Ms. Wadsworth had >50% chance of survival absent negligence; summary judgment proper

Key Cases Cited

Weimer v. Hetrick, 309 Md. 536 (1987) (rejects judicial adoption of loss-of-chance in wrongful death; plaintiff must prove proximate cause by preponderance)
Fennell v. S. Md. Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 320 Md. 776 (1990) (declines loss-of-chance recovery in survival actions and emphasizes deference to legislature)
Marcantonio v. Moen, 406 Md. 395 (2008) (reversed summary judgment where evidence could support that negligence probably caused death; distinguishes true loss-of-chance cases)
Thomas v. Corso, 265 Md. 84 (1972) (discusses substantial possibility language later argued as basis for loss-of-chance theories)
Pittway Corp. v. Collins, 409 Md. 218 (2009) (describes proximate causation as cause in fact plus legally cognizable cause)