 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aldridge v. Family Health and Occupational Centers3/20/2003
ion. Id. at 84.
After carefully reviewing the record in the instant case, it is apparent that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation sufficient to satisfy MCL 600.2912a(2). We note Dr. Epstein's claim that if plaintiff's tumor had been diagnosed and removed before the development of physical and functional disabilities, then it was more likely that the surgical outcome would have been better. Indeed, he explained that " he outlook of surgery is most closely related to the preoperative condition. A patient that has no neurological problem before has much less danger in terms of being permanently worse after surgery than a patient who has significant neurological dysfunction." However, it is important to note that the significant deficiencies plaintiff possessed when he was presented to Dr. Epstein stemmed from the biopsy. It was not until after the biopsy that plaintiff lost the use of his legs for a period of time. Indeed, Dr. Epstein agreed that the vast majority of plaintiff's deficit before his surgery was from the biopsy. He further alleged that plaintiff's present hand and arm weakness were most likely from the biopsy and that the surgery he performed superimposed on it.
To the extent plaintiff experienced weakness before the biopsy, Dr. Epstein described it as trivial. While Dr. Epstein stated that he would prefer to operate on a patient without any weakness, he was unable to quantify the difference in operating on a person with trivial weakness or no weakness at all. Dr. Epstein agreed with the statement that in this case, "there [was not] any quantification of a better result with earlier surgery . . . ." Thus, it appears that Dr. Epstein's testimony that plaintiff had a better than fifty percent chance of a better outcome was premised on the significant deficits that plaintiff possessed from the biopsy, and not from defendants' alleged malpractice in late November 1996.
Because the statute requires that a loss of opportunity for a better result exceed fifty percent in a medical malpractice action, we find that the trial court properly granted defendants' motion for summary disposition. MCL 600.2912a(2); Fulton, supra at 83-84.
Affirmed.
Jessica R. Cooper
William B. Murphy
Kirsten Frank Kelly
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|