Sherri Martin v. David Ledingham Md ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                          Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    December 10, 2010                                                                          Marilyn Kelly,
    Chief Justice
    138636                                                                              Michael F. Cavanagh
    Maura D. Corrigan
    Robert P. Young, Jr.
    Stephen J. Markman
    SHERRI MARTIN,                                                                       Diane M. Hathaway
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                                                       Alton Thomas Davis,
    Justices
    v                                                        SC: 138636
    COA: 280267
    Emmet CC: 05-009021-NH
    DAVID LEDINGHAM, M.D., DAVID
    RYNBRANDT, M.D., ANDRIS KAZMERS,
    M.D., and PETOSKEY SURGEONS, P.C.,
    Defendants,
    and
    NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITAL,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    _________________________________________/
    On October 6, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to
    appeal the January 27, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court,
    the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to
    appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case
    to the Emmet Circuit Court for entry of an order denying the defendant’s motion for
    summary disposition. Because the plaintiff’s expert witness testified at his deposition
    that, if the nurses had timely informed the treating physician of the plaintiff’s
    deteriorating condition, the standard of care would have required the treating physician to
    treat the plaintiff differently than he did, while the treating physician averred in his
    affidavit that he would not have treated the plaintiff any differently than he did even if the
    nurses had timely informed him of the plaintiff’s deteriorating condition, a question of
    material fact exists that must be resolved by a jury. That is, having presented expert
    testimony regarding the treatment that the plaintiff, pursuant to the standard of care,
    should have received in the first 72 hours post-surgery, the treating physician’s averment
    that he would have acted in a manner contrary to this standard of care presents a question
    of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve. See White v Taylor Distributing
    Co, 
    482 Mich 136
    , 141 (2008) (A question of material fact existed for the jury to decide
    because the defendant’s deposition testimony that he “felt great” before he blacked out
    was called into question by the defendant’s treating physicians’ deposition testimony that
    2
    the “defendant’s condition would have caused ongoing symptoms such as cramps and
    pain.”). We agree with the assertion in Judge GLEICHER’s concurring opinion in Ykimoff
    v W.A. Foote Mem Hosp, 
    285 Mich App 80
    , 121, 124 (2009), that the Court of Appeals
    “incorrectly decided Martin,” and that “plaintiff’s expert testimony called into question
    the credibility of the surgeons’ affidavits by asserting that the standard of care applicable
    to the affiants required swifter intervention.”
    I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    December 10, 2010                   _________________________________________
    1209                                                                 Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 138636

Filed Date: 12/10/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014