Riley, J.
In this appeal, we address three issues: (1) whether Michigan recognizes a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death, (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiffs complaint did not sufficiently plead á claim for pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury,1 and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for pain and suffering from pulmonary injury. We hold that Michigan does not recognize a causé of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that plaintiffs complaint was inadequately specific and in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In early October 1990, plaintiff Kimberly Weymers, who was twenty years old, became ill with coughing, fever, nausea, aching, and chest congestion. After her condition did not improve for more than a week, she went to defendant Walled Lake Medical Center where she was initially examined by a physician’s assistant. The physician’s assistant concluded from plaintiff’s symptoms that she suffered from a respiratory infection and gave her antibiotics. After another week, plaintiff returned to the medical center because her symptoms intensified. The physician’s assistant diag[643] nosed plaintiff with pneumonia and sent her home with a stronger prescription of antibiotics. On October 23, 1990, plaintiff visited the medical center a third time because her condition had not improved. A blood sample indicated that plaintiff suffered from severe anemia. Defendant Dr. Frank Fenton, the owner of the medical center, arranged for plaintiff to be admitted to defendant St. Joseph’s Hospital in Pontiac.
On the evening of October 23, 1990, plaintiff was admitted to St. Joseph’s intensive care unit and was given blood transfusions to combat the anemia. On October 24, 1990, defendant Dr. Rheka Khera examined plaintiff and suspected the possibility of a kidney problem and asked defendant Dr. Gregorio Ferrer, a nephrologist,2 to examine her. Dr. Ferrer examined her that day and concluded that she could have a rare disease, Goodpasture’s syndrome.3 He began an immunosuppressive therapy4 immediately, and scheduled a kidney biopsy for October 25, 1990. Plaintiff initially responded to the treatment, but soon [644] after her condition began to deteriorate. Plaintiffs biopsy was postponed until October 26, 1990, and she was placed on a respirator.
On October 26, 1990, plaintiff was transferred to William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak and placed under the care of Dr. Isam Salah. At the time, plaintiff had only ten to fifteen percent of her kidney functions. The biopsy was delayed for another three days. The hospital performed a plasma exchange, but it failed to save plaintiffs kidney functioning.5 Plaintiff was placed on dialysis after her kidneys totally failed and eventually underwent a kidney transplant.
On August 16, 1991, plaintiff filed this medical malpractice suit against defendants Drs. Khera, Ferrer, and Fenton, and against Walled Lake Medical Center and St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. During discovery, plaintiff presented an affidavit by expert witness Dr. Eric Neilson, Chief of the Renal Division of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, who testified that if defendants had given plaintiff proper care she would have had a thirty to forty percent chance of retaining the functioning of her kidneys. Dr. Neilson noted that plaintiffs life expectancy had been “significantly shortened” as a consequence of the loss of her kidneys, and that she would ultimately suffer a premature death.6 After discovery was closed, St. Joseph’s Hospital moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the alleged negligence caused the [645] loss of her kidneys.7 The other defendants joined the motion. In response to defendants’ motion, plaintiff asserted that she could recover for her kidney damage even though there was less than a fifty percent chance that defendants’ negligence caused the damage on the basis of the lost opportunity doctrine recognized in Falcon v Memorial Hosp, 436 Mich 443; 462 NW2d 44 (1990). Plaintiff also argued that her damages were not limited to the loss of her kidneys, but also included pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury.8 Defendants responded that plaintiff had failed to allege damages from her pulmonary injury.
The trial court agreed with defendants and granted their motion for summary disposition. The trial court noted that plaintiff had failed to show that it was more probable than not that her kidney failure was caused by defendants’ alleged negligence, and refused to extend the lost opportunity doctrine recognized in Falcon, a wrongful death case, to situations in which the injury did not result in death. The trial court further held that plaintiff’s claim of pulmonary injury [646] was not sufficiently pleaded in her complaint. Plaintiff subsequently asked the trial court to allow her to amend her complaint to specifically allege pain and suffering from her pulmonary condition. The trial court denied this request.
Plaintiff appealed in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the trial court, holding that the lost opportunity doctrine applied to physical injury less than death. 210 Mich App 231, 236-237; 533 NW2d 334 (1995). The Court of Appeals also held that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing plaintiff to amend her complaint because defendants were on notice of plaintiffs claim of pulmonary injury and therefore would not have been “unduly prejudiced” by the amendment.9 Id. at 241.
Defendant Drs. Khera and Ferrer appealed, and this Court granted leave to appeal on May 22, 1996.10
I. LOST OPPORTUNITY DOCTRINE
A
Defendants brought their summary disposition motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Under that subsection, summary disposition is proper when “[e]xcfept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” In other words, the “court must be satisfied . . . that ‘it is impossible for the claim or [647] defense to be supported at trial because of some deficiency which cannot be overcome.’ ” Stevens v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich 365, 370; 446 NW2d 95 (1989), quoting Rizzo v Kretschmer, 389 Mich 363, 372; 207 NW2d 316 (1973). In making that determination, the court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). We review summary disposition decisions de novo. Groncki v Detroit Edison Co, 453 Mich 644, 649; 557 NW2d 289 (1996).
B
We address whether the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death.
Under Michigan medical malpractice law, as part of its prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. MCL 600.2912a; MSA 27A.2912(1); Locke v Pachtman, 446 Mich 216, 222; 521 NW2d 786 (1994). To establish proximate cause, the plaintiff must prove the existence of both cause in fact and legal cause. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162-163; 516 NW2d 475 (1994). To establish cause in fact,
the plaintiff must present substantial evidence from which a jury may conclude that more likely than not)[11] but for the [648] defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.
* * *
“The plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.” [Id. at 164-165, quoting Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 41, p 269.][12]
To establish legal cause, the plaintiff must show that it was foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct “may create a risk of harm to the victim, and . . . [that] the result of that conduct and intervening causes were foreseeable.” Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 439; 254 NW2d 759 (1977).
The antithesis of proximate cause is the doctrine of lost opportunity. The lost opportunity doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover when the defendant’s negligence possibly, i.e., a probability of fifty percent or less, caused the plaintiff’s injury.13 See Reisig, The loss of a [649] chance theory in medical malpractice cases: An overview, 13 Am J Trial Advocacy 1163 (1990). In Falcon, supra at 469-470 (Levin, J., lead opinion), 472-473 (Boyle, J., concurring), this Court adopted the lost opportunity doctrine in wrongful death cases. Our Legislature immediately rejected Falcon and the lost opportunity doctrine. MCL 600.2912a(2); MSA 27A.2912(1)(2).14 Accordingly, Falcon only applies to causes of action that arose before October 1, 1993. See 1993 PA 78, subsection 4(1) (providing the effective date of the amendment). We do not address the issue raised in Falcon because it is not now before this Court.15 However, for the reasons that follow, we refuse to extend Falcon. Specifically, we hold that no cause of action exists for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death.16
[650] C
There are three alternative approaches to the lost opportunity doctrine: (1) the pure lost chance approach, (2) the proportional approach, and (3) the substantial possibility approach. Each approach lowers the standard of causation, with the effect that a plaintiff is allowed to recover without establishing cause in fact.
The pure lost chance approach allows a plaintiff to recover for his injury even 'though it was more likely than not that he would have suffered the injury if the defendant had not been negligent. See Thompson v Sun City Community Hosp, 141 Ariz 597; 688 P2d 605 (1984). The plaintiff only has to show that the defendant’s negligence decreased the plaintiff’s chance, no matter how slight, of avoiding the injury. Id. If the plaintiff makes such a showing, he receives full damages.17 Id.
The proportional approach is identical to the pure lost chance approach; however, the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the percent of chance lost multiplied by the total amount of damages that would ordinarily be recovered in that action. McKellips v St Francis Hosp, Inc, 741 P2d 467, 476 (Okla, 1987). For example,
[651] if a patient had forty percent chance of recovering from breast cancer and a negligent physician’s misdiagnosis results in her chances dropping to ten percent, then the plaintiff can recover thirty percent of her total death-related injuries. Thus, if her damages totaled $100,000, the plaintiff could recover $30,000. [Moore, South Carolina rejects the lost-chance doctrine, 48 SC L R 201, 202 (1996).]
The last approach, the substantial possibility-approach, was adopted by this Court in Falcon for wrongful death cases. It also is a variation of the pure lost chance approach. Under this approach, the plaintiff must show that there is a substantial possibility that the defendant’s negligence caused his injury. See Falcon, supra at 469. It is unclear what constitutes a “substantial possibility.” See id. at 470 (holding that a 37.5 percent chance of survival was substantial, but refusing to state what constitutes a threshold showing of substantial). It is clear, however, that it does not have to be more than fifty percent.18 Id. Thus, the substantial possibility approach is identical to the other approaches to the extent that each approach allows a plaintiff to recover for his injury even though it was more likely than not that he would have suffered the injury if the defendant had not been negligent.19
[652] d
Turning to the case now before this Court, the Court of Appeals, relying on the substantial possibility approach, extended the lost opportunity doctrine to the loss of a substantial opportunity to avoid any physical harm. The Court justified its decision on the often proffered reason of deterrence:
If the lost opportunity doctrine is limited to cases only involving death, potentially flagrant examples of malpractice could go uncompensated in cases in which the same negligent failure to diagnose or treat results in a lost opportunity to avoid egregious harm, i.e., paralysis or coma. Thus, the deterrent and loss-allocation functions of tort law would be undermined if defendants could escape liability for the effects of negligent conduct that cause demonstrable losses. [210 Mich App 237.]
We acknowledge that the deterrent and loss-allocation functions of tort law are important.20 How[653] ever, we reject scrapping causation (the bedrock of our tort law) in negligence cases where the injury alleged by the plaintiff is something less than death, for the lost opportunity doctrine’s deterrent effect. As the Texas Supreme Court succinctly stated:
[W]e reject the notion that the enhanced deterrence of the loss of chance approach might be so valuable as to justify scrapping our traditional concepts of causation. If deterrence were the sole value to be served by tort law, we could dispense with the notion of causation altogether and award damages on the basis of negligence alone. [Kramer v Lewisville Memorial Hosp, 858 SW2d 397, 406 (Tex, 1993).]
Furthermore, the South Carolina Supreme Court reflects our sentiments in this regard:
We are persuaded that “the loss of chance doctrine is fundamentally at odds with the requisite degree of medical certitude necessary to establish a causal link between the injury of a patient and the tortious conduct of a physician.” Legal responsibility in this approach is in reality assigned based on the mere possibility that a tortfeasor’s negligence was a cause of the ultimate harm. This formula is contrary to the most basic standards of proof which undergird the tort system. [Jones v Owings, 318 SC 72, 77; 456 SE2d 371 (1995) (emphasis in original, citations omitted).]
Accordingly, because we refuse to discard causation in negligence actions of this kind, we do not recognize a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death. Therefore, the Court of Appeals recognition of such a cause of action was in error and is reversed.
[654] H. SPECIFICITY AND AMENDMENT OF PLEADING
A
Decisions concerning the meaning and scope of pleading, and decisions granting or denying motions to amend pleadings, are within the sound discretion of the trial court and reversal is only appropriate when the trial court abuses that discretion. Dacon v Transue, 441 Mich 315, 328; 490 NW2d 369 (1992); Ben P Fyke & Sons v Gunter Co, 390 Mich 649, 658; 213 NW2d 134 (1973).
B
We first address whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding that plaintiffs complaint did not sufficiently plead a claim for pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury.
MCR 2.111(B)(1) requires that a complaint be specific enough to reasonably inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims against him. This Court, in Dacon, supra at 329, explained that
[t]Ms rule is designed to avoid two opposite, but equivalent, evils. At one extreme lies the straightjacket of ancient forms of action. Courts would summarily dismiss suits when plaintiffs could not fit the facts into these abstract conceptual packages. At the other extreme lies ambiguous and uninformative pleading. Leaving a defendant to guess upon what grounds plaintiff believes recovery is justified violates basic notions of fair play and substantial justice. Extreme formalism and extreme ambiguity interfere equivalently with the ability of the judicial system to resolve a dispute on the merits. The former leads to dismissal of potentially meritorious claims while the latter undermines a defendant’s opportunity to present a defense. . . . Neither is acceptable.
[655] In medical malpractice actions, a plaintiff must allege, with reasonable definiteness and certainty, every fact necessary to constitute a cause of action. Dacon, supra at 332-333; Simonelli v Cassidy, 336 Mich 635, 644; 59 NW2d 28 (1953). To establish medical malpractice, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. Locke, supra at 222.
c
Turning to the case before this Court, plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that her complaint did not sufficiently plead a claim for pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury. We disagree and hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Plaintiffs first amended complaint was not specific enough to reasonably inform defendants of a claim for pulmonary injury. Paragraph 29, the section of plaintiffs complaint addressing the proximate cause and injury elements of plaintiff’s malpractice claim, did not mention pulmonary injury. Rather, it only addressed the injury of plaintiff’s kidneys:
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of negligence and malpractice as described in paragraphs 26 and 28, Plaintiff, Kimberly Weymers, has suffered and continues to suffer severe and grievous injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Significant medical expenses, past, present and future.
B. Loss of earnings and earning capacity.
C. Severe physical and mental pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of natural enjoyments of life.
[656] D. Permanent loss of all renalp[21] function requiring periodic and frequent dialysis.[22] [Emphasis added.]
We are not persuaded by plaintiffs argument that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to recognize that plaintiffs general allegation of pain and suffering encompassed her claim for pulmonary injury. A plaintiff in a malpractice action cannot make a general allegation of pain and suffering and expect the defendant to determine without any guidance [657] from the plaintiff which injury formed the basis of the pain and suffering. See Dacon, supra at 330 (concluding that pleadings that “alleg[e] everything . . . allege [] nothing [and] . . . are not proper under MCR 2.111”). Moreover, unlike plaintiffs claim for pulmonary injury, defendants were on notice of plaintiffs claim for pain and suffering resulting from her kidney failure because plaintiff specifically alleged in paragraph 29 of her complaint that she suffered injury to her kidneys.
The only arguable mention of pulmonary injury in plaintiffs complaint was in the sections addressing defendants Dr. Khera’s and Walled Lake Medical Center’s alleged breach of the standard of care:
Failure [of Dr. Khera] to obtain appropriate consultations in a timely manner, including a nephrology consult and a pulmonary consult. [¶ 32.][23]
Failure [of Walled Lake Medical Center] to refer Kimberly Weymers for appropriate consultation in light of her presenting [sic] history, signs and symptoms, including a consultation with an internist, pulmonologist or nephrologist. [¶ 28.][24]
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that this hint of pulmonary injury [658] was insufficient to put defendants on notice.25 Thus, the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s claim for pulmonary injury was not sufficiently pleaded' was not an abuse of discretion.
D
We next address whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to include a claim for pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury.
If a court grants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), (9), or (10), the court must give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings pursuant to MCR 2.118, unless the amendment would be futile. MCR 2.116(I)(5). MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Under subrule A(3), the court can order the amending party to compensate the opposing party for the additional expense caused by the late amendment, including reasonable attorney fees.
A motion to amend ordinarily should be granted, and should be denied only for the following particularized reasons:
“[1] undue delay, [2] bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, [3] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [4] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and 5] futility . . . .” [Fyke, supra at 656.]
[659] If a trial court denies a motion to amend, it should specifically state on the record the reasons for its decision. Id. at 656-657.
Delay, alone, does not warrant denial of a motion to amend. Fyke, supra at 663-664. However, a court may deny a motion to amend if the delay was in bad faith or if the opposing party suffered actual prejudice as a result. Id. “Prejudice” in this context does not mean that the allowance of the proffered amendment may cause the opposing party to ultimately lose on the merits. Id. at 657. Rather, “prejudice” exists if the amendment would prevent the opposing party from receiving a fair trial, if for example, the opposing party would not be able to properly contest the matter raised in the amendment because important witnesses have died or necessary evidence has been destroyed or lost. Id. at 663.
In Fyke, we suggested that there may be some cases in which the delay is so long and the amendment so substantial that the opposing party would be denied a fair trial by the delay, and therefore be prejudiced:
The litigation may proceed to a point where the opposing party cannot reasonably be expected to defend against the amendment; this is an especially pertinent factor on the eve of, during, or after trial. [Id.]
We reaffirm this principle, but clarify its application. We hold that a trial court may find prejudice when the moving party seeks to add a new claim or a new theory of recovery on the basis of the same set of facts, after discovery is closed, just before trial, and the opposing party shows that he did not have reasonable notice, from any source, that the moving [660] party would rely on the new claim or theory at trial.26 We recognize that parties ought to be afforded great latitude in amending their pleading before trial, however, that interest must be weighed against the parties’ and the public’s interest in the speedy resolution of disputes. As Judge John L. Coffey of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained:
While Fed R Civ P 15[27) favors amendments when required by justice, it is not a license for carelessness or gamesmanship. Parties to litigation have an interest in speedy resolution of their disputes without undue expense. Substantive amendments to the complaint just before trial are not to be countenanced and only serve to defeat these [661] interests. The district court must consider the harm when deciding whether to grant leave.
Defense of a new claim obviously will require additional rounds of discovery, in all probability interview of new witnesses, gathering of further evidence, and the identification of appropriate legal arguments. All this necessarily takes time. The parties must have an opportunity for preparation if trial is to be meaningful and clear. Some delay of trial therefore is inevitable — a natural consequence of allowing claims to be brought at all. In this sense, delay alone is not a sufficient basis for refusing an amendment. On the other hand, amendments near the time set for trial may require postponement when the same allegations made earlier would have afforded ample time to prepare without delay. Plaintiff is not entitled to impede justice by imposing even reasonable preparation intervals seriatim. Cf. Ins v Abudu, [485 US 94, 95] 108 S Ct 904, 913; 99 L Ed 2d 90 (1988) (“strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the adversaries a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases”). Whether it results from bad faith or mere absentmindedness, a district judge may act to deter such artificial protraction of litigation, and its costs to all concerned, by denying the amendment. Zenith Radio Corp [v Hazeltine Research, Inc], 401 US [321], 330 [91 S Ct 795; 28 L Ed 2d 77 (1971)]; Bohen [v City of East Chicago, Ind], 799 F2d [1180], 1184-1185 [(CA 7, 1986)]. [Feldman v Allegheny Int'l, Inc, 850 F2d 1217, 1225-1226 (CA 7, 1988).]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit further explained in Priddy v Edelman, 883 F2d 438, 446-447 (CA 6, 1989):
A party is not entitled to wait until the discovery cutoff date has passed and a motion for summary judgment has been filed on the basis of claims asserted in the original complaint before introducing entirely different legal theories in an amended complaint. ... In complex cases such as this one, ... it is particularly likely that drastic amendments on the eve of trial will prejudice the defendants. . . . [662] Putting the defendants “through the time and expense of continued litigation on a new theory, with the possibility of additional discovery, would be manifestly unfair and unduly prejudicial.” [Citations omitted.][28]
E
Turning to the case now before this Court, plaintiff attempted to amend paragraph 29 of her complaint to add the following subparagraph:
Physical and mental pain and suffering resulting from the aggravation of the pulmonary pathology.
Defendants opposed the motion, asserting that they would be prejudiced by the amendment because plaintiff was introducing her claim for pulmonary injury for the first time just before trial was scheduled to begin. The trial court denied plaintiffs motion, focusing on the length of the delay and on defendants’ lack of notice of plaintiff’s new claim:
The Court is satisfied that this is a 1991 case. The Defendants did not have notice that the general damage element of pain and suffering was specific to the damages arising out of pulmonary pathology. Defendants prepared for trial and the Defendants prepared for mediation, the Court is satisfied, due to the loss of renal function. And despite the Plaintiffs contentions, the Court’s [sic] satisfied that the Motion for Amendment of the Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, should be denied, and I do so.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, holding that it abused its discretion in [663] denying plaintiffs motion to amend because the evidence established that defendants “had notice of potential pulmonary complications and thus would not have been unduly prejudiced . . . 210 Mich App 241. In doing so, the Court of Appeals rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s amendment sought to add a new theory to the case. Id. at 242.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals assertion, we hold that plaintiff’s amendment did seek to introduce a new theory or claim into the case and that defendants did not have reasonable notice that plaintiff would rely on that new theory at trial.
Plaintiff argues that her amendment sought to change the type of damages sought, not add a different claim or theory to the case, and that, therefore, on the basis of Sherrard v Stevens, 176 Mich App 650, 654; 440 NW2d 2 (1988), she was entitled to the amendment. In Sherrard, supra at 655, the Court of Appeals held:
While we note that the amendment came shortly before trial, we also note that the amendment did not raise new factual allegations, but merely claimed new types of damages arising from the same set of factual allegations. Accordingly, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive because her case is distinguishable from Sherrard. In Sherrard, the plaintiffs sought to amend their legal malpractice complaint to add a prayer for exemplary damages. Plaintiff Weymers, on the other hand, sought to amend her complaint to change the type of injury she claimed was proximately caused by defendants’ negli[664] gence.29 Therefore, plaintiffs amendment is more appropriately characterized as raising a new claim or theory, not a new type of damages.
Plaintiffs argument that defendants had reasonable notice of her pulmonary claim is also unpersuasive. Although deposition testimony,30 medical records,31 [665] and the mediation summary32 suggested that defendants had knowledge that Goodpasture’s syndrome causes pulmonary injury and that plaintiff suffered such injury, defendants had no notice that plaintiff was intending to assert a claim for pulmonary injury at trial.33 This distinction is significant. If defendants had no notice that plaintiff was intending to assert an independent claim for pulmonary injury, the brief mention of pulmonary injury during the discovery process cannot reasonably be said to automatically make its later appearance as a claim nonprejudicial against defendants. Given the wide latitude of the discovery rules, see MCR 2.302(B), as far as defendants were concerned, the sporadic mention of pulmonary injury during discovery could have been simply fortuitous.
Plaintiff also relies on Terhaar v Hoekwater, 182 Mich App 747, 752; 452 NW2d 905 (1990), in support of her contention that defendants had reasonable notice of her claim for pulmonary injury. Plaintiff’s reliance on Terhaar is misguided because in Terhaar, unlike the case now before us, the plaintiff not only investigated and pursued her new theory during dis[666] covery, she also notified the defendant during discovery that she would pursue that theory at trial.34
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend because the amendment sought to introduce a new claim just before trial, after discovery had closed, and defendants demonstrated that they did not have knowledge that plaintiff was intending to rely on the new claim at trial.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Michigan does not recognize a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid [667] physical harm less than death. Thus, the trial court properly granted defendants’ summary disposition motion. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff did not sufficiently plead a claim for pain and suffering from her pulmonary injury. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a new claim for pulmonary injury. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision.
Mallett, C.J., and Brickley and Weaver, JJ., concurred with Riley, J.
Boyle, J., concurred only in the result.