 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Snow v. Irion12/8/2005
f] would have undergone had her cancer been timely diagnosed" constitutes "a legally cognizable injury," and allowed her to pursue her present and future damages under the "'one action rule.'" Id. at , 18.
The facts in this case are almost identical to those in Medved. Like the plaintiff in Medved, the Snows claim damages not only for an increased risk of the recurrence of cancer, but also for harm already suffered due to cancer treatment Marion Snow would not have had to undergo but for Irion's negligence. Under Medved, these present harms constitute a legally cognizable injury. See id. at . Accordingly, under the one action rule, the Snows have alleged an actionable injury and can bring a single action for both present and future damages.
CONCLUSION
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Medved v. Glenn, 2005 UT 77.
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
WE CONCUR:
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
Page 1 2 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|