This summary also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
Issues: Medical malpractice; "Nursing-negligence"; Craig ex rel. Craig v. Oakwood Hosp.; Whether expert testimony is necessary with regard to issues surrounding the standard of care; Thomas v. McPherson Cmty. Health Ctr.; Whether the court considers evidence on appeal that was not included in the lower court record; In re Rudell Estate; Whether a lack of documentation in a hospital chart creates a question of fact sufficient to survive a motion for summary disposition; Zdrojweski v. Murphy
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Hammond v. Port Huron Hosp.
e-Journal Number: 58220
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Meter and K.F. Kelly; Concurring in the result only – M.J. Kelly
The court held that the trial court did not err in granting the defendant-hospital's motion for summary disposition because the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact. She sued defendant and three nurses claiming their negligence in failing to turn her frequently while she was in a medically-induced coma caused a late-stage pressure ulcer and permanent scarring. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff's expert's conclusions were "'based upon speculation and conjecture'" and that plaintiff "'failed to present legally sufficient evidence to establish causation between the alleged breaches of care and the [p]laintiff's injuries.'" On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that she presented sufficient evidence of a breach of the standard of care and causation to survive summary disposition. "The three nurses involved all testified that plaintiff was turned approximately every two hours, as required." Plaintiff's expert "questioned this conclusion because the turns were not documented in the chart. However, the lack of documentation in the chart does not create a question of fact sufficient to survive a motion for summary disposition." Further, "plaintiff did not testify with specificity regarding the frequency of her being turned." It noted that her expert answered "No" when asked whether she was accusing the nurses of lying at their depositions, and "did not adequately explain the discrepancy between her conclusions and the nurses' testimony." Affirmed.
© 2014 State Bar of Michigan