Boryla v. Pash’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2018
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hamil v. Bashline · 6 Cal. 4th 965 - Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · 99 Wash. 2d 609 - Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative · Evers v. Dollinger · Towns v. Anderson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In cases where the plaintiff demonstrates that her cancerous condition physically worsened as a result of the delayed diagnosis, the plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficient physical injury to permit the recovery of emotional distress damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the outset, we note that Boryla did not request damages for the increased possibility that she might suffer a recurrence of cancer in her complaint. Instead, she sought damages for “emotional distress, including fear of an increased risk of recurrence of cancer.” (Emphasis supplied).... Boryla presented evidence that the delay in diagnosis led to the following physical effects: (1) an increase in the size of the tumor and the number of cancer cells in her body; (2) the possible metasis of existing cancer cells .... [B]y presenting evidence that her condition physically worsened as a result of the delayed diagnosis, Boryla established an attendant physical injury which permitted the jury to consider damages for the emotional distress stemming from her fear of an increased risk of cancer recurrence .... That emotional distress would be a consequence of defendant’s alleged negligence need not be supported by expert testimony, such being a matter fully within the personal knowledge or experience of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bond v. Ivanjack“For these reasons, traditional negligence principles which focus on proximate cause as well as the reasonableness of the plaintiff's fear are sufficient to evaluate fear of cancer claims in medical malpractice claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.