Medical malpractice; Causation; Personal Representative (PR)
Concluding that a genuine issue of material fact on the causation element of plaintiff-PR's malpractice claims existed, the court held that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendants-McLaren, Dr. Banerjee, and Arundhuti Banerjee, M.D. PC. Plaintiff claims that malpractice on the part of Dr. Banerjee ultimately led to decedent-Ryan’s “death because the malpractice delayed Ryan receiving critical neurological evaluation and life-saving treatment.” The trial court found that Dr. V’s (one of plaintiff’s causation experts) opinions were mere speculation. The court concluded “that the trial court erred in this regard, and it failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Dr. V “opined that had Dr. Banerjee ensured that the repeat CT scan had been performed, the consulting neurologist, Dr. [S], would have consulted with a neurosurgeon, and a decompressive craniectomy with hyperosmolar therapy would have followed to save Ryan’s life. This opinion was not based on mere conjecture.” The court held that viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a question of fact existed with respect to whether a mechanical thrombectomy or hemicraniectomy would have been available to Ryan in a timely fashion had Dr. Banerjee ensured the repeat CT scan occurred.” Further, the trial court ignored Dr. V’s opinion as to “the administration of hyperosmolar therapy that could have been ordered by Dr. [S], the neurologist on staff at McLaren.” On this record, the court found “that the trial court erred when it concluded that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to give rise to a question of fact with regard to whether Ryan’s death was more probably than not proximately caused by Dr. Banerjee’s negligence. McLaren has not provided evidence to support its claim that it did not have the ability to provide the decompressive craniectomy or that had Ryan been transferred, he would not have received the needed treatment in time to prevent his death.” By contrast, “plaintiff provided expert testimony that there were several hours within which hyperosmolar therapy or a decompressive craniectomy could have been performed and that had the surgical procedure been performed to relieve the swelling and pressure on the brain, Ryan would have survived. The evidence supported a conclusion that it was more likely than not that Dr. Banerjee’s failure to ensure that a repeat CT scan occurred was a cause of Ryan’s death. The causal connection between Dr. Banerjee’s actions and Ryan’s death was not too attenuated to satisfy the but-for requirements. Rather, the record demonstrates that plaintiff set forth substantial specific facts to support a reasonable inference of a logical sequence of cause and effect.” At the very least, the court held that “a question of fact existed in this regard.” Reversed and remanded.
Full PDF Opinion