Geraldine Carmona
HCM 388 – Legal Aspects of Health Care
Dickhoff and Kayla Dickhoff, v. Rachel Green, M.D.,
December 2, 2013
I.
Procedure
a. The parties involved are Jocelyn Dickhoff by her parents and natural guardians Joseph
Dickhoff and Kayla Dickhoff, v. Rachel Green, M.D., et. al.
b. The parents of Jocelyn Dickhoff, Joseph Dickhoff and Kayla Dickhoff brought the action
forth.
c. The case originated in the Kandiyohi County District Court.
d. The Kandiyohi County District Court ruled in favor of Rachel Green, M.D.
e. After the case was ruled in favor or Rachel Green, M.D., because “loss of chance of life”
was not recognized by the stat of Minnesota; the Dickhoff’s appealed the decision. In
the Court of Appellate Court the ruling was in favor of the Dickhoff family. However, the
case did not stop here because then Rachel Green appealed this decision. The case
finally reached the Minnesota Supreme Court where the court concluded that the “loss
of chance of life” was recognized.
II.
Facts
a. Jocelyn Dickhoff was born on June 12, 2006 – Parents: Kayla & Joseph Dickhoff
 Jocelyn went home two weeks later; Kayla finds a bump on Jocelyn’s buttocks.
 The next day, the parents take Jocelyn to Dr. Rachel Tollefsrud (formerly Dr. Rachel
Green) at Family Practice Medical Center of Willmar.
 During the two-week checkup, Kayla alleges she made the bump noticed to Dr.
Tollefsrud.
 Jocelyn was not sensitive to it.
 Kayla alleges Dr. Tollefsrud said not to worry, and that it was probably a cyst.
 Both parent and provider dispute Jocelyn’s bump for a year.
 The bump grew in size and became less movable.
 Dr. Tollefsrud recalled a bump 0.6cm in size and moveable under the skin.
 Dr. Tollefsrud’s first documentation of the bump on Jocelyn’s medical file was on
Jocelyn’s one-year checkup (June 14, 2007.)
 Dr. Tollefsrud reported “small lump on left buttock, which had been unchanged,
now has gotten larger.)
 The bump grew four centimeters wide.
 Kayla took Jocelyn to Dr. Brenda Weigel at the end of July 2007.
 Dr. Brenda Weigel is a pediatric oncologist.
 August 2007 – Dr. Brenda Weigel diagnosed Jocelyn Dickhoff with stage five alveolar
rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS,) cancer of the muscle.
 Doctors at Sloan-Kettering in New York said Jocelyn’s cancer was at stage three.
 Children under age one have a worse prognosis when compared to other children.
 Jocelyn went through six months of chemotherapy,
 Jocelyn had the tumor surgically removed.
 Jocelyn underwent additional chemotherapy and radiation.
 April 2009 – Kayla and Joseph Dickhoff filed a lawsuit on behave of Jocelyn.
 Dr. Tollefsrud and Family Practice Medical Center failed to diagnose Jocelyn or refer
her to a specialist.
 Dr. Tollefsrud and Family Practice Medical Center negligence resulted in injuries.
 Parents alleged the cancer would have been curable if it would have been property
and timely diagnosed.
 Kayla and Joseph Dickhoff have to expert to testify in trial.
 Expert 1, Dr. James Gelbmann, family-practice physician testified on the standard of
care.


Expert 2, Dr. Forman, pediatric hematology and oncology physician.
Dr. Forman testified that Jocelyn’s cancer would most likely not been curable if it
would have been diagnosed earlier.
 Jocelyn’s cancer at stage III had 60% or recurrence and death.
 Dr. Forman states if diagnosed on time, Jocelyn could have had a better than 60%
chance of survival.
 April 2010 – Jocelyn undergoes chemotherapy.
 District court ruled past and future medical expenses were precluded.
 In Minnesota medical-malpractice exists when a physician’s negligence causes the
patient’s chance of survival falls below 50 percent.
 Dr. Tollefsrud and Family Practice’s are granted motion by the district court.
 The Supreme Court had consistently rejected claims for reduced change of life.
 Claim for medical expense was also dismissed.
 Kayla and Joseph Dickhoff appeal.
b. I would like to know if Dr. Tollefsrud followed the proper procedures, if she failed to test
the bump once it was brought to her attention. I would also like to why it took Dr.
Tollefsrud a year to record the bump on Jocelyn’s medical record. Another thing to take
notice is why Dr. Tollefsrud did not refer Jocelyn to a specialist when she noticed the
bump had grown in size.
II. Issues
a. Determine if the court made a mistake when dismissing the claim brought forth by the
Dickhoffs’.
b. I agree that the issues are a claim for reduced change and a claim for damage arising
from Jocelyn’s cancer. However, I do not agree with dismissal of these claims.
IV. Holding
a. The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the question of whether Jocelyn’s “loss of
chance” claim should be recognized.
b. The conclusion to accept the claim of loss of chance of life came from a result when
examining Fabio v. Bellomo.
c. I do agree with the recognition of physician, Rachel Green (Tollefsrud) negligence
caused Jocelyn’s shortness of life.
V. Implications
a. This case leaves an important legacy in the state of Minnesota, where a physician can
now get sued for negligence, shortness of life. A patient can now claim monetary
damages if the physician’s negligence negatively impacted the chance of recovery.
b. Patient recovered damages after the physician’s negligence caused loss of life, because
of this state Minnesota now recognized the doctrine “chance of life”.
c. Healthcare administration must make sure the physicians are well aware of the state’s
legal standing in issues pertaining their practice. Administration should also be
prepared to answer any questions that could be brought forth by a physician.
Healthcare is an industry with a large amount of liability, and it is important for
everyone in the industry to understand his or her part. If any doubt arises, one must
know to ask and seek the right procedure to follow.
d. I do not think much would have changed in this case if it were to happen today. The
negligence of the physician was based on her actions and failure to diagnose Jocelyn.
VI. Students’ and court opinions, including and dissention.
a. This case served as a seminar case, a platform for many other cases in Minnesota
dealing with physician’s negligence and “loss of chance.” This case brought a change in
the law of the state of Minnesota, and will hopefully help other families when battling
their case in law.
VII. Bibliography
a. http://www.bassford.com/resource-caselaw_Dickhoff_052913.pdf