 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffiths v. Sezgin8/23/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Fitzgerald, JJ.
In this medical malpractice action, defendants Yucel Sezgin, M.D., and Yucel Sezgin, M.D., P.C., appeal by right from a judgment awarding plaintiff Clifford Griffiths $300,000, plus interest, taxable costs, and mediation sanctions. Sezgin argues that the trial court committed error warranting reversal when it entered a default against him for failing to personally appear for trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial. We decide this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I. Basic Facts and Procedural History
This case arose when Sezgin operated on Griffiths' back, which had been diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and scoliosis. Sezgin performed a laminectomy and put a titanium cage around Griffiths' spinal column. After the operation, Griffiths began experiencing increasing back pain, difficulty walking, and pain in his groin. Griffiths returned to Sezgin on two subsequent occasions because of the pain, and each time Sezgin gave him an epidural injection in his groin. Sezgin told Griffiths that one leg was shorter than the other and that he should have special shoes made to correct the problem. Shortly thereafter, Sezgin told Griffiths that there was nothing more he could do to help him.
Eventually, Griffiths was referred to a neurosurgeon, who told Griffiths that the first surgery had been performed improperly. The neurosurgeon explained that the cage was not in proper position and that his spine was unstable and unsupported, which had caused his rib cage to collapse and impinge on his nerves, causing severe pain. The neurosurgeon performed surgery on Griffiths to correct these problems.
Griffiths filed a complaint against Sezgin individually as well as Yucel Sezgin, M.D., P.C, alleging that, as a result of Sezgin's negligence, Griffiths sustained pain, suffering, and disability, and would require additional surgeries to correct the problem. On the date set for trial, Sezgin did not appear, although his attorney was present and prepared to defend. In light of Sezgin's failure to appear, the trial court found Sezgin in default and entered a default with respect to the issue of Sezgin's breach of the standard of care. The trial court indicated that it was entering the default because Sezgin did not appear even though he knew about the trial date, and Griffiths had the right to cross-examine him. The jury found that Sezgin's medical malpractice was the proximate cause of Griffiths' injuries and that Griffiths had suffered $300,000 in damages. The trial court entered a judgment against Sezgin of $300,000 plus interest, taxable costs, and mediation sanctions.
II. Default
A. Standard of Review
We review the trial court's decision to enter a default for an abuse of discretion.
B. Absence of Subpoena or Court Order to Appear
Although Sezgin failed to personally appear for trial, his attorney did appear on his behalf and was prepared to defend against Griffiths' malpractice claim. Rather than allowing Sezgin's attorney to proceed, the trial court defaulted Sezgin on the issue of his breach of the standard of care. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.
In Rocky Produce, Inc v Frontera, this Court reversed and remanded for trial where, as in this case, the trial court entered a default judgment against the defendant because she failed to appear for trial, even though the defendant's attorney was present on her behalf. The Court explained:
The right to representation by legal counsel in a civil case is provided in our Michigan
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.
|
|