 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eubanks v. Henry Ford Hospital8/27/2002
e complaint, we conclude that some of plaintiff's allegations are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury but others are not. See Dorris, supra at 45-46. A jury is doubtless competent to determine whether defendant's employees called all available numbers and whether they took adequate steps to ensure that the beeper was working properly before giving it to Gray. However, as plaintiff acknowledges, expert testimony will probably be required on the issue of probable cause. Moreover, whether defendant set up and followed adequate calling protocols for its heart transplant patients is almost certainly a question of professional medical judgment outside the common knowledge of the jury and requiring expert testimony. Id. at 47. We conclude that although there are some questions of ordinary negligence involved, those questions flow from predominating medical malpractice issues and are too intertwined with malpractice theory for a meaningful division. Therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety. Id.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Christopher M. Murray
E. Thomas Fitzgerald
Peter D. O'Connell
|