 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Howell v. Macomb MRI10/11/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
Plaintiff Walter Howell appeals by delayed leave granted from the trial court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with the procedural requirements applicable to medical malpractice actions. As plaintiff's claims sound in ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Background
Plaintiff, a seventy-five year old man, was injured on May 3, 2002, when an agent of defendant, Macomb MRI, "pushed or otherwise caused" him to roll off a table while positioning him for an MRI examination. Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to file a medical malpractice claim against defendant pursuant to MCL 600.2912b, and subsequently timely filed his complaint on October 22, 2003. However, it is undisputed that plaintiff did not file an affidavit of merit with this complaint pursuant to MCL 600.2912d. Defendant, therefore, filed a motion for summary disposition. On March 10, 2004, the trial court denied defendant's motion, determining that plaintiff was not required to file an affidavit of merit as his claims sounded in ordinary negligence. In July of 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision in Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, clarifying the distinction between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice. Defendant thereafter renewed its motion for summary disposition. The trial court changed its position, ruling that plaintiff's claims sounded in medical malpractice and dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to file an affidavit of merit on January 20, 2005. Plaintiff was precluded from filing an amended complaint at that time as the two-year statute of limitations had run on his claims.
II. Ordinary Negligence v. Medical Malpractice
We review the trial court's determination regarding the nature of plaintiff's claims and the application of the statute of limitations de novo. The trial court improperly determined that plaintiff's claims sounded in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence.
A medical malpractice claim is distinguished by two defining characteristics. First, medical malpractice can occur only "'within the course of a professional relationship.'" Second, claims of medical malpractice necessarily "raise questions involving medical judgment." Claims of ordinary negligence, by contrast, "raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the [fact-finder]." Therefore, a court must ask two fundamental questions in determining whether a claim sounds in ordinary negligence or medical malpractice: (1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience. If both these questions are answered in the affirmative, the action is subject to the procedural and substantive requirements that govern medical malpractice actions.
Plaintiff does not dispute that his injury occurred within the context of a professional relationship. However, the reasonableness of the MRI technician's action is within "the realm of common knowledge and experience," and can be evaluated by lay jurors without expert testimony on the standard of care and the medical issues presented. Plaintiff's allegations do involve the positioning of a patient on an MRI table for testing. The reasonableness of the technician's actions, however, do not involve medical judgment. It takes no specialized knowledge to evaluate whether the technician unreasonably caused plaintiff to fall from the table, or whether the tech
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.
|
|