Wood v. Vroman

17 Citing cases

  1. Siirila v. Barrios

    398 Mich. 576 (Mich. 1976)   Cited 59 times
    In Siirila, the Supreme Court actually addressed SJI 2.12 and GCR 1963, 516.6(3), the predecessor versions of SJI2d 4.12 and MCR 2.516(D)(3).

    The trial judge overturned this because "the testimony of the plaintiff's experts could not be considered by the jury as worthy of belief regarding the standards of actual private practice of the physicians in the Detroit area during the time periods in question". In reinstating the verdict, this Court relied on Wood v Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, 465, 466; 184 N.W. 520 (1921), which said a specialist is "obligated to bring to the discharge of his duty that degree of skill and knowledge possessed by physicians who are specialists in the light of present day scientific knowledge". This Court then said:

  2. Paul v. Lee

    455 Mich. 204 (Mich. 1997)   Cited 20 times

    Thus if a foreign object is left within the body of a patient on whom an operation has been performed, to his injury, laymen may properly decide the question of negligence without the aid of experts. Wood v Vroman, 226 Mich. 625 [ 198 N.W. 228 (1924)]; LeFaive v Asselin, 262 Mich. 443 [ 247 N.W. 911 (1933)]; Taylor v Milton, 353 Mich. 421 [ 92 N.W.2d 57 (1958)]. However, the rule applicable in most cases of malpractice was well summarized in Zoterell v Repp, 187 Mich. 319, 330 [153 N.W. 692 (1915)], as follows:

  3. Bruni v. Tatsumi

    46 Ohio St. 2d 127 (Ohio 1976)   Cited 616 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a health care professional may be liable for malpractice if they "did some particular thing or things that [providers] of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or failed or omitted to do some particular thing or things which [providers] of ordinary skill, care and diligence would have done under the same or similar circumstances."

    The latter is "* * * obligated to bring to the discharge of his duty that degree of skill and knowledge possessed by physicians who are specialists in the light of present day knowledge. * * *" ( Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, 465, 184 N.W. 520.) Accordingly, the standard of care in this case is that owed to a patient by the community of neurosurgeons.

  4. Roberts v. Young

    369 Mich. 133 (Mich. 1963)   Cited 46 times
    In Roberts, this Court also applied the general rule, determining that expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care for informing a patient of the possibility of infection following the proposed surgery.

    If in an action for damages for malpractice it appears that the conduct charged against the medical practitioner was of such character as to not require expert testimony submission of the question at issue to the jury is proper without evidence from other practitioners. Thus if a foreign object is left within the body of a patient on whom an operation has been performed, to his injury, laymen may properly decide the question of negligence without the aid of experts. Wood v. Vroman, 226 Mich. 625; LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich. 443; Taylor v. Milton, 353 Mich. 421. However, the rule applicable in most cases of malpractice was well summarized in Zoterell v. Repp, 187 Mich. 319, 330, as follows:

  5. Barnes v. Mitchell

    341 Mich. 7 (Mich. 1954)   Cited 27 times
    Concluding that under Michigan's common law, the defendant chiropractor could face liability for negligent conduct of an assistant because sufficient evidence showed that the defendant "authorized the X-ray treatment" at issue, and his assistant "gave the X-ray within the course of her employment and to further the interest of the defendant rather than her own interest"

    "And it is the province of the jury to draw the legitimate inferences from the established facts in this character of cases. Marx v. Schultz, 207 Mich. 655 (19 NCCA 976); Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449. The Wood Case was a malpractice case, and it was said by Mr. Justice [NELSON] SHARPE, speaking for the Court (pp 461, 462): "`The plaintiff was not required to prove to an absolute certainty that the infection was caused by the introduction of the germs in the pus. He was required to establish facts from which such an inference might fairly have been drawn by the jury.'

  6. Fauver v. Bell

    192 Va. 518 (Va. 1951)   Cited 47 times
    In Fauver v. Bell, 192 Va. 518, 65 S.E.2d 575, the right of an employee to sue a physician or surgeon for malpractice was sustained though the plaintiff had been awarded and had accepted payment of compensation under the Virginia Act on account of the original injury so treated by the defendant physician.

    In other jurisdictions action is permitted on the theory that the physician, whether hired by the employer or not, is a third party within the contemplation of their workmen's compensation act. Seaton v. United States Rubber Co. (1945), 223 Ind. 404, 61 N.E.2d 177; Pawlak v. Hayes, 162 Wis. 503, 156 N.W. 464, L. R. A. 1917A, 392; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 280 Ill. App. 440, affirmed in 371 Ill. 36, 20 N.E.2d 53; White v. Matthews, supra; Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, 184 N.W. 520. See also, Smith v. Golden State Hospital, 111 Cal.App. 667, 296 P. 127; Hoffman v. Houston Clinic (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S.W.2d 134; and Hoehn v. Schenck, 221 App. Div. 371, 223 N.Y. S. 418; Parchefsky v. Kroll Bros., 267 N.Y. 410, 196 N.E. 308, 98 A. L. R. 1387; Baker v. Wycoff, 95 Utah 199, 79 P.2d 77.

  7. Perri v. Tassie

    293 Mich. 464 (Mich. 1940)   Cited 18 times
    In Perri v. Tassie, 293 Mich. 464, the court held that opinion evidence may not be given by one who has no knowledge or experience of the medical standards in the community.

    Plaintiffs claim that the judgments should be sustained even if we hold the claimed expert lacked the necessary qualifications, because the conduct charged, if true, was such that "even the merest tyro would know was improper." (WIEST, J., in Ballance v. Dunnington, 241 Mich. 383 [57 A.L.R. 262]). While we have generally insisted that the plaintiff in a malpractice suit produce competent evidence by experts that the defendant's acts were not in accordance with the recognized standards of practice of the profession in the same or similar communities ( Miller v. Toles, 183 Mich. 252 [L. R. A. 1915 C, 595]; Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449; Czajka v. Sadowski, 243 Mich. 21; Rytkonen v. Lojacono, 269 Mich. 270; Rubenstein v. Purcell, 276 Mich. 433), expert testimony has been dispensed with where no question of skill or judgment, or of practice beyond the knowledge of laymen is involved. Ballance v. Dunnington, supra; LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich. 443. See, also, Paulen v. Shinnick, 291 Mich. 288.

  8. Baker v. Wycoff

    95 Utah 199 (Utah 1938)   Cited 21 times

    He could answer what is or what is not proper practice or the correct diagnosis under the circumstances. Brewer v. Ring, 177 N.C. 476, 99 S.E. 358; Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, 184 N.W. 520; Laughlin v. Christensen, 8 Cir., 1 F.2d 215; National Automobile Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 132 Cal.App. 373, 22 P.2d 568; Thomason v. Hethcock, 7 Cal.App.2d 634, 46 P.2d 832; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518, 264 P. 1078; Schamoni v. Semler, 147 Or. 353, 31 P.2d 776; McCoy v. Clegg, 36 Wyo. 473, 257 P. 484; Bockoff v. Curtis, 241 Mich. 553, 217 N.W. 750; Darling v. Semler, 145 Or. 259, 27 P.2d 886. See, also, Boyce v. Brown, Ariz., 77 P.2d 455; 4 Wigmore on Evid., 2d Ed., 454, 455, to a similar effect.

  9. Rytkonen v. Lojacono

    257 N.W. 703 (Mich. 1934)   Cited 15 times
    In Rytkonen v. Lojacono, 269 Mich. 270, 257 N.W. 703 (1934), a drainage tube was allowed to slip into the patient's pleural cavity due to defendant doctor's failure to secure the tube with a pin or with tape. Plaintiff's expert witness testified that other physicians in the area generally did secure drainage tubes with a pin.

    Nor is the treatment another physician would have used under the circumstances the test. Wood v. Vroman, 515 Mich. 449, 465. The rule is firmly established that defendant was bound to use the degree of diligence and skill which is ordinarily possessed by the average of the members of the profession in similar localities.

  10. Overbeek v. Nex

    261 Mich. 156 (Mich. 1933)   Cited 16 times

    However, the court found that there was no malpractice; that the collection from the doctor was a gratuity, inasmuch as he had not been responsible; that the fact that a declaration alleging malpractice had been filed in the case against the doctor was not conclusive, and that the amount allowed for compensation was not affected at all by the unwarranted settlement for malpractice. Likewise, in Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, recovery was based upon malpractice in treating a condition which did not arise out of the worker's employment. The loss of the eye did not result from treatment of the injury received in the course of employment, but from the subsequent removal of a small ulcer discovered by defendant during his examination.