Opinion
No. 11–P–1574.
2012-07-25
Sally CRISWELL v. Jeffrey ARLE.
By the Court (CYPHER, GRASSO & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that the defendant doctor negligently failed to provide the plaintiff with appropriate discharge instructions concerning appropriate care for a surgical incision. A medical malpractice tribunal found that the plaintiff's offer of proof was insufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry. We conclude that, if for no other reason, the plaintiff's offer of proof was insufficient to warrant further judicial inquiry regarding the issue of causation.
The plaintiff's offer of proof to the tribunal left causation speculative. The plaintiff's expert acknowledged that the plaintiff missed her scheduled follow-up appointment on May 30, 2006; that she presented at a local emergency room on May 31 with “ruddy erythema, mild induration, some surrounding tenderness, no exudate,” but most importantly with no infection requiring antibiotic treatment. This information establishes that, if the plaintiff had kept the appointment scheduled by the defendant's office on May 30, 2006, no infection would have been in progress. That circumstance undermines the plaintiff's primary hypothesis of substandard care and injury, i .e., the proposal that infection began and progressed because the defendant had scheduled an insufficiently prompt follow-up appointment. See Kepler v. Tufts, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 587, 590 (1995).
Judgment affirmed.