 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital8/27/2002
h 2 above."
If we only look to the statements in paragraphs two and three of the notices, they arguably do not comply with the statute, particularly with respect to the individual defendants. However, nothing in the statute requires that the notice of intent be in a particular format or that each of the six statutory items be separately listed or identified. If we look to the respective first paragraphs of the notices (the factual basis for the claim), we do find a statement of the manner in which plaintiff claims the standard of practice or care was breached. Specifically, the notices clearly state that the medical personnel incorrectly diagnosed a spontaneous abortion rather than an ectopic pregnancy, resulting in the loss of plaintiff's only remaining fallopian tube, thus rendering her sterile.
Accordingly, we conclude that this statutory requirement was met.
(d) The alleged action that should have been taken to achieve compliance with the alleged standard of practice or care.
Both notices refer to paragraph two of the respective notices. Again, we look to the statements in paragraph one of each notice to provide additional information. Clearly, when reading the notices as a whole, plaintiff alleges that the action which should have been taken is to have timely diagnosed the ectopic pregnancy so that it could have been treated without the loss of plaintiff's left fallopian tube. Thus, this requirement was met.
(e) The manner in which it is alleged the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury claimed in the notice.
Once again, both notices refer to their respective paragraph two. And also once again, the more detailed statements of the factual basis for the claim provides the necessary information. Specifically, plaintiff clearly states that the misdiagnosis resulted in having to have emergency surgery four days later to remove her only remaining fallopian tube as a result of the tube bursting from the undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, thus rendering her sterile. This is clearly a statement of the manner in which it is alleged that the breach of the standard of practice or care proximately caused the injury .
(f) The names of all health professionals and health facilities the claimant is notifying under this section in relation to the claim.
The September 19 notice lists "Mecosta County General Hospital and all agents and employees, actual or ostensible, thereof," while the September 23 notice lists "Obstetrics & Gynecology of Big Rapids, Gail DesNoyers, M.D., Michael Atkins, M.D., Barb Davis, PAC, and all agents and employees, actual or ostensible, thereof." Thus, all of the defendants are listed in the two notices.
In sum, while the notices of intent in this case may not represent the picture of clarity and certainly do not represent the "perfect notice," they do comply with the statute. To declare them inadequate would require that we read into the statute requirements that simply do not exist. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the notices were inadequate and in dismissing the case based upon that determination.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Plaintiff may tax costs.
David H. Sawyer
Peter D. O'Connell
Michael R. Smolenski
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.
|
|