No. 118110

Click to view briefs in Adobe format:

Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>

Defendant-Appellant Brief on Appeal>>

Amicus Curiae Michigan Health and Hospital Association Brief>>

Background
This medical malpractice case has a complicated procedural history. The case arises from an accident in a neonatal intensive care unit at Hurley Hospital. A tube came free from the abdomen of a premature infant, causing the child to lose half his blood. The child's parents sued the hospital, and a doctor who is not involved in this appeal, in Genesee County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs argued that their child's cerebral palsy and mild retardation were caused by the negligence of one or more care-givers in the unit. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $2.4 million. The Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the jury verdict. The hospital appeals, making four arguments:

1) Genesee County Circuit Judge Earl Borradaile, who presided at the trial, instructed the jury about the negligence of the hospital unit where the injury happened, rather than about the negligence of one or more individual professionals. The hospital says that professional malpractice can only be committed by individuals, not by a "unit" within the hospital. Judge Borradaile also erred by deleting the word "ordinary" from the phrase "learning, judgment, or skill" in the standard jury instruction, the hospital claims.

2) The judge failed to instruct the jury to apply a local standard of care in evaluating the professional conduct of the nurse who may have caused the harm.

3) By applying a national standard of care, rather than a local standard, the judge also erred by allowing the plaintiffs' expert witnesses to testify. Those witnesses could not address the local standard of care, the hospital contends.

4) The hospital's appellate counsel also argues that he was unfairly maligned by a Court of Appeals majority opinion.

The plaintiffs argue that any errors the trial judge made as to the first and second issues were harmless and do not require reversal. They also contend that there is no "local" versus "national" standard of care at issue. As to the final issue, the plaintiffs state that the majority "drew proper conclusions from the record and expressed legitimate reservations concerning the unorthodox manner in which defendant pursued its appellate remedies."

Get the latest version of Internet Explorer. Some of the files on this site are PDF files. To view PDF files, you need Acrobat Reader. Download your free copy here.

Technical questions about this site should be sent to webinfo@courts.mi.gov.
Questions about the content on this site should be sent to msc-info@courts.mi.gov.