154476 - Audrey Trowell v Providence Hosp & Med Centers
Attorney Information
|
Audrey
Trowell,
|
|
Mark Granzotto
Carla D. Aikens
Jules B. Olsman
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Oakland – O’Brien, C.)
|
|
|
Providence Hospital and
Medical Centers, Inc.,
|
|
Rhonda Y. Reid Williams
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Plaintiff Audrey
Trowell filed a complaint for “medical negligence,” claiming that when she was
a patient in defendant Providence Hospital ICU a nurse dropped her twice while
assisting her to the bathroom. Defendant moved for summary disposition under
MCR 2.119(C)(7) and (C)(8), arguing that the factual allegations in the
complaint made out a claim of medical malpractice, and that plaintiff failed to
comply with the necessary procedural requirements. In response, plaintiff
argued that her claim was one for ordinary negligence. The trial court ruled that
the complaint was one for medical malpractice and granted defendant’s motion.
The trial court later denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and
motion for reconsideration. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals
considered Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422
(2004), which held that in determining whether the nature of a claim is
ordinary negligence or medical malpractice, a court must answer two fundamental
questions: “(1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within
the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises
questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and
experience.” The panel characterized plaintiff’s complaint as “fairly vague”
but held that it could envision a situation in which plaintiff’s allegations
did not raise questions of medical judgment and, therefore, the claim was one
for ordinary negligence. The panel reversed the grant of summary disposition to
defendant and remanded for further factual development. The Supreme Court has
directed oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to address
whether plaintiff’s complaint alleged a claim of ordinary negligence or medical
malpractice under Bryant.