From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Ledingham

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 10, 2010
488 Mich. 987 (Mich. 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that testimony that a witness would have acted differently under different circumstances "presents a question of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve."

Summary of this case from Barnett v. Jackson
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

No. 138636.

December 10, 2010.

reported below: 282 Mich App 158.

Summary Disposition.

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 plaintiffs expert witness testified at his deposition that, if the nurses had timely informed the treating physician of the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 Distrib Co, 482 Mich 136, 141 (2008) (stating that 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 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. WA Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 121, 124 (2009), that the Court of Appeals "incorrectly decided Martin," and that "plaintiffs 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."

Summaries of

Martin v. Ledingham

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 10, 2010
488 Mich. 987 (Mich. 2010)

holding that testimony that a witness would have acted differently under different circumstances "presents a question of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve."

Summary of this case from Barnett v. Jackson

holding that a genuine issue of material fact regarding proximate cause existed where, despite averments by the plaintiff's physicians that additional information would not have caused them to alter their treatment plan, the plaintiff's medical expert testified that if nurses had informed physicians of the plaintiff's worsening condition, the resulting standard of care would have required the physicians to adopt a different course of treatment

Summary of this case from Irwin ex rel. E.I. v. Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc.

In Martin and Ykimoff, the plaintiffs' experts opined that a treating physician would have made different treatment decisions had the physician received critical information sooner.

Summary of this case from Estate of Wagar v. Clark

In Martin, the Supreme Court stated that "the treating physician's averment" that he would not have acted differently presented "a question of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve."

Summary of this case from Estate of Wagar v. Clark

In Martin, the Supreme Court rejected the dissent’s remarkable proposition that a fact-finder is duty-bound to accept an uncontroverted fact.

Summary of this case from Estate of Taylor v. Univ. Physician Grp.

In Martin, the defendant nurses had failed to provide the defendant doctor with information about the plaintiff's condition that was relevant to the doctor's post-surgical decision-making.

Summary of this case from Estate of Luten v. Genesys Reg'l Med. Ctr.
Case details for

Martin v. Ledingham

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN v. LEDINGHAM

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 10, 2010

Citations

488 Mich. 987 (Mich. 2010)
791 N.W.2d 122

Citing Cases

Estate of Luten v. Genesys Reg'l Med. Ctr.

The majority's analysis not only disregards plaintiff's evidence and finds facts, but overlooks the role…

Price v. Austin

Two additional medical malpractice cases make the same point. In Ykimoff v WA Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App…

12 Citing Cases