 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tonowski v. Rihawi3/10/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Following a jury trial, plaintiff, as next friend for her brother, Bernard Tonowski, was awarded a judgment of $1,905,961.47 against defendant, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, in this medical malpractice action. The trial court denied defendant's posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial. Defendant appeals as of right. Plaintiff cross appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of her requests for case evaluation sanctions and taxable costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. We affirm defendant's liability for attendant care services, vacate the award for attendant care services (both past and future), and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages for attendant care services.
I. FACTS
The basic issue at trial was whether defendant's agents, Dr. Wilma AgnelloDimitrijevic, a neurologist, and Dr. Mouhamad Rihawi, an internist, failed to properly diagnose a head injury suffered by Bernard Tonowski, and failed to provide appropriate follow-up. As a result of the alleged malpractice, blood accumulated inside Tonowski's skull, undetected, resulting in permanent brain damage. The jury found negligence on the part of Dr. Dimitrijevic, but not on the part of Dr. Rihawi.
II. EXPERT TESTIMONY
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff's two experts, Dr. Jeffrey Gelblum and Dr. Barry Meyer, to testify regarding proximate cause. Defendant argues that plaintiff's experts were not qualified to testify regarding what a neurosurgeon would or should have done. Defendant objected to the challenged testimony at trial and also raised this issue in its motion for JNOV or a new trial, which the trial court denied.
A. Standard of Review
A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Waknin v Chamberlain, 467 Mich 329, 332; 653 NW2d 176 (2002). A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial under MCR 2.611 is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 761; 685 NW2d 391 (2004). A new trial may be granted for, among other things, " rregularity in the proceedings of the court, . . . or an order of the court or abuse of discretion which denied the moving party a fair trial." MCR 2.611(A)(1)(a). In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for a directed verdict or JNOV, " he appellate court is to review the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" to determine whether a question of fact exists. Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391; 617 NW2d 305 (2000). "Only if the evidence so viewed fails to establish a claim as a matter of law should the motion be granted." Id. In other words, this Court is to examine the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. If reasonable jurors could honestly have reached different conclusions, the motion should have been denied. If reasonable jurors could disagree, neither the trial court nor this Court has the authority to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. [Matras v Amoco Oil Co, 424 Mich 675, 681-682; 385 NW2d 586 (1986).]
"If the court determines that recognized scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." MRE 702; see also Craig v Oakwood Hospital, 471 Mich 67, 78-78; 684 NW2d 296 (2004).
B. Analysis
MCL 60
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|