Nursing malpractice; Danhoff v Fahim; MRE 702; MCL 600.2955; Principle that a medical malpractice claim may not be supported solely by a defendant’s failure to maintain proper documentation; Adequacy of an expert witness’s opinion

The court held that the trial court did not err in ruling that the opinion offered by plaintiff’s expert (M) was insufficient to sustain plaintiff’s nursing malpractice claims against defendants and thus, that defendants were entitled to summary disposition. The trial court was correct that a medical malpractice “claim may not be supported solely by a defendant’s failure to maintain proper documentation.” Plaintiff asserted that the main thrust of M’s opinion “was not simply that either defendant failed to maintain accurate records of his treatment, but that the treatment he actually received was inconsistent with those records and below the standard of care” (SOC). But the court agreed with the trial court that M’s “opinion to that effect was inadequate. [M] testified that the course of treatment documented in plaintiff’s medical records was consistent with the [SOC]. This was sufficient to articulate her opinion on the applicable [SOC]. But where her opinion falls short, and plaintiff’s claim falls apart, is at the next step of the inquiry—establishing a breach of that [SOC]. The only support plaintiff offered for the notion that he received treatment inconsistent with defendants’ documentation or the” SOC was M’s opinion as to “the progression of his wounds—in particular, the deterioration of his coccyx wound. Merely describing an injury or bad outcome, however, is not sufficient in itself to establish the breach of a” SOC. M agreed that skin breakdowns can still occur where nurses perform within their abilities; “that sometimes, ‘despite the appropriate interventions[,] wounds continue[] to progress’; and that, ‘just because [a wound] progresses[,] that does not equate to medical negligence.’” While she opined she did not believe that was the case here, the only support offered for her “opinion was a general and undeveloped reference to her ‘education . . . and experience, that when wound care orders are followed through and provided the way that they should be provided, . . . the wound should be able to progress towards healing versus degrading.’ Such bare reliance on an expert’s experience and background, without more, is typically inadequate to establish the admissibility of their opinion, and plaintiff has failed to explain how it may have been sufficient here.” Affirmed.