 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cragg v. Auburn Counseling Associates6/25/2002
' alleged negligent medical treatment. See Law Offices of Lawrence J Stockler, P C, supra at 33-34. These alleged damages did not result directly from defendants' wrongful acts, are not the legal and natural consequence of defendants' wrongful acts, and would not reasonably have been anticipated by defendants. See Sutter, supra. Even assuming arguendo that negligent medical treatment resulted in Young being a danger to herself and others, the cause and effect relationship between defendants' negligent treatment and damages related to Young's involvement in, and liability for, a fatal motor vehicle accident with a third party is too contingent and remote to be a considered a proximate consequence of such negligence. Therefore, the trial court properly held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover such damages.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Mark J. Cavanagh
Hilda R. Gage
Murray, J. (concurring.)
I fully concur in the Court's opinion. I write separately, however, to express my view that had we not decided the issue of plaintiff Krcmarik's ability to recover damages for injuries Young received in the automobile accident on causation grounds, I would still hold that plaintiff Krcmarik would not be entitled to recover damages in the medical malpractice action for injuries which Young suffered as a result of the automobile accident because of the wrongful conduct rule. Orzel v Sott Drug Co., 449 Mich 550; 537 NW2d 208 (1995). This is so because plaintiff Krcmarik would have to prove as part of the medical malpractice claim that an injury was suffered as a result of the alleged malpractice, MCL 600.2912a, and therefore, to recover damages associated with any injuries received in the automobile accident plaintiff Krcmarik by necessity would have to put into evidence the fact of the accident. As such, proof that Young was driving on a suspended license would be a part of the case, thus implicating the wrongful conduct rule. See Poch v Anderson, 229 Mich App 40, 44; 580 NW2d 456 (1998). The Supreme Court has not addressed this precise issue despite having the opportunity to do so, Mathews v Wyant, 465 Mich 853, 854; 629 NW2d 926 (2001) (Markman, J., dissenting), and this Court also had no need to address the issue in this case because this Court has concluded on other grounds that plaintiff Krcmarik is not entitled to recover any damages arising from Young's involvement in the car accident. Hence, I concur in the Court's opinion.
Christopher M. Murray
|