From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Jorgenson v. Vener
South Dakota Supreme Court
616 N.W.2d 366, 2000 S.D. 87 (2000)
Facts
David Jorgenson (plaintiff), a South Dakota resident, shattered his right leg and ankle while on vacation in Wisconsin. A Wisconsin physician put pins in Jorgenson’s leg, and when Jorgenson returned home to South Dakota, he saw Dr. Michael Vener (defendant), an orthopedic surgeon. Jorgenson had drainage coming from his pins, so Vener put Jorgenson on antibiotics, to no avail. Jorgenson had two more appointments with Vener with increasingly severe symptoms of infection. Finally, Vener recommended Jorgenson see a doctor in Fargo about the infection. Jorgenson went to the Mayo Clinic instead, where Jorgenson had his leg amputated due to a bone infection. Jorgenson then filed a medical-malpractice claim against Vener. To support his claim, Jorgenson submitted the affidavit of Dr. Mark E. Rupp, an infectious-disease expert, who opined that Vener’s failure to timely diagnose and treat Jorgenson’s bone infection caused Jorgenson the loss of a chance to prevent amputation of his leg. Vener moved for summary judgment, arguing that the loss-of-chance doctrine was not recognized in South Dakota and that Jorgenson could not establish that Vener’s actions were the proximate cause of Jorgenson’s loss of his leg. The trial court granted summary judgment in Vener’s favor, and Jorgenson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, C.J.)
Concurrence (Amundson, J.)
Dissent (Konenkamp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
