 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Towns v. Sinai Hospital12/17/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendant Sinai Hospital in this medical malpractice action. We affirm.
I. Basic Facts and Procedural Background
Plaintiff underwent heart valve replacement surgery performed by Eric Hanson, M.D., an employee of defendant. A surgical needle used during the heart valve replacement surgery was left inside plaintiff. Plaintiff did not experience any post-operative chest pain. Approximately three and a half months after the operation, plaintiff was informed of the needle in his chest. Plaintiff went to see a lawyer and another physician because he was upset and was concerned about what would happen.
Plaintiff ultimately filed a negligence claim against defendant. In regard to his injuries, he specifically alleged that he:
21. . . . sustained great bodily injury to body, including but not limited to scarring of internal tissue, movement of needle, metallic poisoning, puncturing of internal organs, and interference with the function of internal organs.
22. . . . sustained great psychological injury, and is receiving treatment for the same.
23. . . . is undergoing great emotional injury as a result of his knowledge of the presence of the surgical needle, and is receiving treatment for the same.
24. . . . sustained great inconvenience, financial loss, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of opportunity, and loss of physical capacity.
Plaintiff's expert, Hayward C. Maben, M.D., stated in his supporting affidavit that plaintiff is undergoing great psychological and emotional injury as a result of his knowledge of the presence of the surgical needle, and is receiving treatment for the same.
However, during Maben's deposition, he testified that the needle is not going to move, will not puncture any of plaintiff's internal organs and will not cause metallic poisoning. Maben additionally testified that plaintiff did not have to get the needle removed because it will not harm plaintiff. Maben's notes from his first visit with plaintiff on December 2, 1999, state: "patient advised needle was not causing any problem at this time." After the lawsuit was filed, plaintiff complained of a "sticking sensation" in his chest, but Maben stated he was not impressed with that complaint because he did not know of anything that would give plaintiff a "sticking sensation" in his chest, and did not believe it was related to the needle.
Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff failed to present evidence that he has suffered compensable damages, either physical or emotional. In response, plaintiff argued he sustained an identifiable injury, i.e., a foreign object wrongfully left in his body, and presented sufficient evidence to show a causal relationship between defendant's negligence and his injury.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendant's motion finding plaintiff could not establish the element of damage, physical or emotional. The trial court stated the testimony of plaintiff's own expert, Maben, established very clearly that plaintiff suffered no physical injury or harm due to the retained surgical needle. Although the trial court acknowledged plaintiff has fears, it found these fears alone did not form a basis for recovery.
II. Standard of Review
The grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Haliw v City of Sterling Heights, 464 Mich 297, 301-302; 627 NW2d 581 (2001). In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court must consi
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|