 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.6/9/1999
that the applicable standard of practice or care was breached by the health professional or health facility receiving the notice.
(c) The actions that should have been taken or omitted by the health professional or health facility in order to have complied with the applicable standard of practice or care.
(d) The manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice.
In Bronson v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, 175 Mich App 647; 438 NW2d 276 (1989), the plaintiff's complaint included allegations that the defendant hospital had failed to supervise and adequately maintain its staff. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for failure to file the claim within the two-year period of limitation applicable to medical malpractice claims, because the complaint stated a claim for ordinary negligence only, which is governed by a three-year period of limitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of summary disposition, agreeing with the trial court that the allegations within the plaintiff's complaint involve issues of medical judgment.
The key to a medical malpractice claim is whether it is alleged that the negligence occurred within the course of a professional relationship. The providing of professional medical care and treatment by a hospital includes supervision of staff physicians and decisions regarding selection and retention of medical staff. [175 Mich App 652-653 (citations omitted).]
The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment. Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 611; 309 NW2d 898 (1981); McLeod v Plymouth Court Nursing Home, supra at 115. In Starr v Providence Hosp, 109 Mich App 762, 766; 312 NW2d 152 (1981), the Court of Appeals found that issues involving whether the defendant hospital exercised appropriate supervision in a "special care unit" were "issues involving professional judgments which are beyond the common knowledge and experience of laymen to judge."
In Waatti v Marquette General Hosp, Inc, 122 Mich App 44, 49; 329 NW2d 526 (1982), the Court of Appeals held that " hether a seizure patient requires constant medical attendance or restraints is an issue of medical management to be established by expert testimony," citing Wilson v Stilwill and Starr v Providence Hosp, supra.
Count III of Gregory's complaint makes the three following allegations:
17. That Defendant Hospital owed a duty to its patients to hire employees who would protect them from other patients with violent propensities and to closely monitor those patients with such propensities.
18. That Defendant Hospital also owed a duty to its patients to have adequate staffing to control the behavior of the patients under psychiatric care at Defendant Hospital.
19. That Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff by having insufficient staff to monitor the behavior of its patients and by allowing patients with violent propensities to roam around the hospital and enter other patients' rooms without supervision.
As in Bronson, Starr, and Waatti, these allegations concerning staffing decisions and patient monitoring involve questions of professional medical management and not issues of ordinary negligence that can be judged by the common knowledge and experience of a jury. Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|