Emily Marie Duty v. Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital
332154
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- In June–July 2009 Emily Duty, a paraplegic, was assigned a wheelchair (J3 backrest) by physical therapist Tracy Oostema at Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital; the wheelchair lacked locking pins for the removable backrest.
- The backrest locked via latches; locking pins are a secondary device that prevent the latches from being moved forward.
- On August 12, 2009 the backrest came off while Duty performed a pressure relief; she fell backward and hit her head. Duty did not dispute the latches were not secured, and Oostema acknowledged that locking pins, if present and used, would have prevented the fall.
- Duty sued Mary Free Bed for negligence (claiming the wheelchair was defective/dangerous because it lacked locking pins). After a jury trial the jury found no negligence and the court entered judgment for Mary Free Bed.
- Duty moved for JNOV or a new trial (weight of evidence); she also sought a new trial based on a juror challenge/misconduct (Juror Willett, a physical therapist, had Facebook friends who worked at Mary Free Bed) and moved to adjourn when her treating physician was unavailable. Mary Free Bed cross-appealed arguing the claim was medical malpractice barred by the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of JNOV/new trial was erroneous because verdict was against great weight of evidence on negligence | Duty: evidence established Oostema breached duty by giving wheelchair without locking pins, so no reasonable jury could find no negligence | Mary Free Bed: evidence (Oostema and expert Patzer) showed latches were sufficient, pins are secondary, and training was provided — jury could reasonably find no breach | Denied. Court: competent evidence supported verdict; JNOV/new trial not warranted. |
| Whether juror bias or nondisclosure (Juror Willett) required a new trial | Duty: Willett’s status as a physical therapist and Facebook friends at Mary Free Bed created bias/misconduct; challenge for cause should have been granted | Mary Free Bed: Willett affirmed she could be impartial; party had chance to voir dire; nondisclosed Facebook links did not show a personal relationship or misconduct | Denied. Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying challenge; no misconduct shown; new trial not warranted. |
| Whether denial of adjournment (physician unavailable) requires new trial | Duty: absence of treating physician (would testify to causation/damages) prejudiced trial; adjournment was needed | Mary Free Bed: physician’s expected testimony related to causation/damages, but jury decided no negligence (duty/breach only), so any error was harmless | Denied relief. Court: even assuming abuse of discretion, the absence of that testimony did not affect the outcome (no substantial injustice). |
| Whether claim is medical malpractice barred by statute of limitations (cross-appeal) | Duty: argued negligence claim distinct; plaintiff proceeded in ordinary negligence | Mary Free Bed: claim sounds in medical malpractice; two-year limitations expired — trial court erred by denying summary disposition | Court declined to address cross-appeal as moot because jury verdict for defendant makes any ruling on limitations inconsequential. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich, 469 Mich 124 (governs de novo review of JNOV and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Wiley v Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich App 488 (standard for new trial and great-weight review)
- Poet v Traverse City Osteopathic Hosp, 433 Mich 228 (challenge for cause standard and requirements for relief when a challenge for cause is denied)
- Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498 (abuse of discretion standard for trial-court rulings)
- Fultz v Union Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Case v Consumers Power Co, 463 Mich 1 (ordinary care standard)
- Donkers v Kovach, 277 Mich App 366 (use of dictionary to define undefined rule terms such as misconduct)
- Gen Motors Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 290 Mich App 355 (mootness standard and practical effect inquiry)