Medical malpractice; Cox v Hartman; Proximate cause; O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr; Speculative theory; Ykimoff v Foote Mem’l Hosp; Attempt to improperly expand the record on appeal; Leave to amend the complaint; Church & Church, Inc v A-1 Carpenter

Concluding that plaintiff’s causation theory in this medical malpractice case was speculative, and that he did not show a breach of the standard of care (SOC), the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. It also upheld the denial of his request to again amend his complaint where his proposed amendment suffered from the same defects as his first amended complaint. The court first rejected plaintiff’s request that it consider the notes he allegedly “made before and after his doctor visits, as well as his various medical records,” determining that was “an attempt to improperly expand the record on appeal.” As to causation, the court found that he simply assumed that because defendant-Seyfried breached the SOC, the symptoms he was experiencing were “a direct result of that breach. Plaintiff has no direct evidence of further injury as a result of the delay in surgery. The circumstantial evidence plaintiff relies on—i.e., the fact that his symptoms worsened between [5/23/16] and [6/7/16]—presents the possibility, but not the probability, that Dr. Seyfried’s alleged breach of the” SOC caused his injury. This was not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation. Further, plaintiff’s own medical expert (Dr. H) testified there would be no breach of the SOC “if it were the case that plaintiff’s symptoms were stabilized by the cervical collar. Because plaintiff consistently testified that his symptoms were stabilized by the collar,” he did not show that Seyfried breached the SOC put forth by H. He also did not offer any direct evidence of causation in his proposed amended complaint, instead again relying “on circumstantial evidence and speculative inference[.]” Thus, the amendment would be futile.