 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gilmore v. Jankowski6/19/2003
of the growth of the tumor between January of 1998 and May of 1998 can be based on nothing more than unreliable speculation, which is clearly insufficient to support his opinion . . . . In the absence of his opinion, plaintiff cannot establish that any breach by Fox and Jafri was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages, and summary disposition is therefore required.
Similarly, as to Jankowski, the issue is not whether or not the tumor grew at all between June and November of 1998, but whether it grew such that plaintiff was damaged, that is, that the nature of the surgery plaintiff needed changed as a result of tumor growth. Again, given Dr. Mihail's testimony that there are no scientific studies regarding the rate of growth of this tumor, and that he had no knowledge even whether this type of tumor was slow-growing or fast-growing, any opinion offered by him concerning the nature of the growth of the tumor between June of 1998 and November of 1998 lacks factual foundation. . . . In the absence of his opinion, plaintiff cannot establish that any breach by Jankowski was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages, and summary disposition is therefore required. [Emphasis in original.]
Dr. Mihail's opinion that the alleged negligence caused plaintiff's damages is based on pure speculation. As noted above, speculation is insufficient to legally support plaintiff's theory of cause in fact. Skinner, supra; Badalamenti, supra. Without this testimony, plaintiff is unable to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged negligence of defendants was the cause in fact of plaintiff's damages. Because plaintiff has failed to present a prima facie case of medical malpractice, we conclude that summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) as granted by the circuit court was proper.
Affirmed.
Richard Allen Griffin
William B. Murphy
Kathleen Jansen
|