 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Henry Ford Hospital3/22/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant, Henry Ford Hospital, appeals as of right a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Willie Johnson, as personal representative of the estate of Violet Richardson, who died on October 3, 1998, after being admitted for medical treatment on October 1, 1998. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for amendment of the order of judgment to reflect the application of the lower statutory cap on the non-economic damages awarded pursuant to MCL 600.1483 and for amendment of the order awarding costs.
On appeal, defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because plaintiff's experts' testimony and theories were without factual support and based on speculation or conjecture, or were insufficient under MCL 600.2912a(2). After de novo review, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we disagree. See Craig v. Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 77; 684 NW2d 296 (2004).
To prove a medical malpractice claim a plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care, its breach, and injuries to plaintiff that proximately resulted. Id. at 86. Expert testimony is required to articulate the standard of care and to establish its breach. Tate v Detroit Receiving Hosp, 249 Mich App 212, 216; 642 NW2d 346 (2002). Here, plaintiff's standard of care expert, Dr. Robert Stark, testified that plaintiff's decedent was hospitalized for a lupus flare-up that resulted in severe anemia, due to hemolysis and menstruation, and thrombocytopenia. On admission she was short of breath and her hemoglobin and platelet counts were dangerously low. She was transfused with one unit of blood and steroids were started. A hematologist was consulted and recommended transfusion if the patient was bleeding. The patient's hemoglobin and platelet counts remained dangerously low and she was not transfused. Dr. Stark further testified that the standard of care under the circumstances would have been to transfuse. Dr. Shazad Khan, however, who saw the patient on October 3, the third hospital day, noted that the patient had generalized tiredness and was passing clots through her vagina, a sign of heavy menstruation according to Drs. Stark and Spitz, and still did not transfuse. Instead, he recommended waiting twenty-four hours and to transfuse if she started to bleed heavily or became "symptomatic."
At 2:00 p.m., on this third day, the patient became "symptomatic" when she began, again, to experience shortness of breath. Dr. Khan was called by the nurse with this change of condition and he still did not transfuse. The patient's condition became fatal two hours later. Dr. Stark testified that the standard of practice would have been to transfuse, in light of the continued low hemoglobin and platelet levels, the tiredness, shortness of breath, and continued heavy menstruation, i.e., the clinical picture presented. Dr. Khan's failure to transfuse constituted a breach in the standard of practice which resulted in the patient's death. She, essentially, "bled" to death in that her blood was lacking the critical oxygen-carrying capacity to sustain life. Defendant's claim that Dr. Stark testified that plaintiff's decedent died solely from heavy menstruation is a mischaracterization. Throughout his testimony Dr. Stark referred to both the severe anemia, caused by hemolysis and menstruation, and thrombocytopenia, which caused the heavy menstruation.
Similarly, plaintiff's other expert, Dr. Werner Spitz, testified that the patient's death could have been prevented had the standard of care not been breached, i.e., if the patient had received the much needed transfusion. He further testified that the cause of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|