at 1389. As such, the loss of a chance of survival, whether stated as a “loss of opportunity for cure” or “decreased short term survival” is not recoverable in Indiana under Mayhue. Therefore, we conclude that this particular portion of the instruction misstated the law with respect to the type of harm for which recovery may be had. However, the remaining portion of the instruction that permits the jury to award damages for pain and mental suffering and loss of consortium is not erroneous. First, damages for any pain and mental suffering incurred by Cummings during his life as a result of the negligent misdiagnosis are injuries that he could have pursued befor v. McKnight, 493 N.E.2d 775, 777 (Ind.1986), reh’g denied; see also Dearing v. Perry, 499 N.E.2d 268, 272 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). However, this loss of consortium claim is
recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse recognizing loss of consortium claims