 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence v. Systems6/4/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this negligence, personal injury action, defendant appeals as of right from a judgment, following a jury trial, awarding Lloyd C. Ginger damages of $173,658.41, plus interest and costs. We affirm.
After undergoing a bone survey x-ray procedure, plaintiff Lloyd Ginger, who was eighty- seven years old, injured himself by falling from the x-ray table. He filed this suit against the hospital and alleged ordinary negligence.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motions for summary disposition, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or new trial, which were all predicated on defendant's claim that this is an action for medical malpractice, not one for ordinary negligence.
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). Here, defendant's motions were based on both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). In regard to a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), the Beaudrie Court opined:
A motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the basis of the pleadings alone. The purpose of such a motion is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion should be granted if no factual development could possibly justify recovery. [Id. at 129-130.]
"All well-pleaded facts are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Madejski v Kotmar Ltd, 246 Mich App 441, 444; 633 NW2d 429 (2001).
In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), however, we consider "the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Haliw v Sterling Heights, 464 Mich 297, 302; 627 NW2d 581 (2001). "Summary disposition may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.
Our Supreme Court has explained our review of motions for directed verdict and JNOV as follows: "The appellate court is to review the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Only if the evidence so viewed fails to establish a claim as a matter of law, should the motion be granted." Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391; 617 NW2d 307 (2000). Finally, we review a trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Bean v Directions Unlimited, Inc, 462 Mich 24, 34-35; 609 NW2d 567 (2000).
Again, each motion required resolution of the same issue: whether plaintiff's claim alleged ordinary negligence or medical malpractice. Generally, the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole. Adkins v Annapolis Hospital, 116 Mich App 558, 563; 323 NW2d 482 (1982). Our Supreme Court has explained that 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." Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital, 460 Mich 26, 44-46; 594 NW2d 455 (1999). The Dorris Court ruled that "allegations concerning staffing decisions and patient monitoring involve questions of professional medical management a
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|