Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp.
322 Mich. App. 292
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Leana M. Cox sued for nursing malpractice arising from her daughter Angelina’s 2010 birth; defendants in these appeals are nurse Tracey McGregor and Port Huron Hospital.
- Plaintiff relied on nursing expert Claudia A. Beckmann; defendants moved for summary disposition arguing Beckmann was not qualified under MCL 600.2169(1)(b).
- Beckmann’s deposition showed she spent a majority of the relevant year instructing and practicing as a nurse practitioner (advanced specialty), not as a registered nurse.
- Trial court excluded Beckmann’s testimony, granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and later denied plaintiff’s motion to add a new nursing expert and amend the affidavit of merit.
- Plaintiff appealed the qualification ruling and the denial of leave to add an expert; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beckmann met MCL 600.2169(1)(b) to testify on RN standard of care | Beckmann taught in the nursing profession and thus qualified to testify against an RN | Beckmann devoted a majority of her time to the nurse practitioner specialty, not the RN profession, so she is unqualified | Beckmann unqualified: nurse practitioner specialty is a different "health profession" under statutes; testimony excluded |
| Whether summary disposition was proper after excluding Beckmann | Exclusion was erroneous; genuine issue of material fact remains | Without an admissible expert, plaintiff cannot prove standard of care or breach | Summary disposition affirmed because no other qualified expert evidence established standard of care |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to add a new expert (timeliness/prejudice) | Allow amendment; MCR 2.604(A) permits revision before final judgment | Motion was untimely (filed after dismissal) and would prejudice defendants; plaintiff had earlier notice | Denial affirmed: motion untimely, lack of diligence, and prejudice to defendants; within court’s discretion |
| Whether plaintiff could "amend" the affidavit of merit by substituting a new affiant | New affiant should be allowed as an amended affidavit of merit | Substituting an entirely new affiant is not an "amendment" that cures the trial problem; affidavit amendment wouldn’t change exclusion of expert testimony | Denial affirmed: amending affidavit would not address failure to produce a qualified trial expert and does not alter basis for summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich 545 (Sup. Ct.) (trial court’s expert-qualification rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; expert must spend majority time in same practice field)
- McElhaney ex rel. McElhaney v. Harper-Hutzel Hosp., 269 Mich App 488 (Ct. App.) (statutory scope of MCL 600.2169(1)(b) applies to nonphysicians)
- Sturgis Bank & Trust Co. v. Hillsdale Community Health Ctr., 268 Mich App 484 (Ct. App.) (distinguishes affidavit-of-merit stage from trial expert admissibility under MCL 600.2169)
- Elher v. Misra, 499 Mich 11 (Sup. Ct.) (expert testimony generally required in malpractice actions)
- Cox ex rel. Cox v. Bd. of Hosp. Managers for City of Flint, 467 Mich 1 (Sup. Ct.) (malpractice elements and availability of malpractice actions against nurses)
- Grossman v. Brown, 470 Mich 593 (Sup. Ct.) (explains differing standards for affidavit-of-merit and trial expert admissibility)