964 N.W.2d 904
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Linda Horn, 24, with pseudotumor cerebri had a ventricular shunt placed; she presented to the ER on Feb 26, 2013 and again on Mar 2, 2013 with severe headache and vomiting.
- A cranial CT on Mar 2, 2013 was read as showing marked enlargement of the lateral ventricles consistent with shunt malfunction; Dr. Michael Swofford (a board-certified diagnostic radiologist who had previously held neuroradiology qualifications but whose certificate had lapsed) verified the read.
- After the CT interpretation, the ER physician performed a lumbar puncture; Horn later deteriorated, suffered seizures, and died on Mar 4, 2013; autopsy showed diffuse brain swelling.
- Horn’s estate sued for medical malpractice, alleging Swofford (and his practice) should have recognized acute obstructive hydrocephalus, communicated need for neurosurgical intervention, and warned against lumbar puncture; plaintiff’s affidavit of merit was signed by Dr. Scott Berger, who devotes most of his practice to neuroradiology.
- Defendants maintained the controlling specialty was diagnostic radiology (Swofford’s board certification) and that Berger’s neuroradiology focus did not match; the trial court agreed and ruled diagnostic radiology was the one most relevant specialty.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Swofford was practicing neuroradiology when he read the CT, neuroradiology was the one most relevant specialty under MCL 600.2169 as interpreted in Woodard; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which "one most relevant specialty" governs expert-qualification under MCL 600.2169 when a diagnostic radiologist is reading neuroimages? | Neuroradiology; Swofford was practicing neuroradiology when he read the CT, so plaintiff's neuroradiologist expert is the match. | Diagnostic radiology; Swofford is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, so the relevant specialty is diagnostic radiology. | Court held neuroradiology was the one most relevant specialty because Swofford was engaged in neuroradiology when he interpreted the CT; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether plaintiff's neuroradiology expert met §2169 requirements | Berger, who devotes the vast majority of his time to neuroradiology and holds a certificate of added qualification, satisfies §2169. | Defendants argued mismatch of specialties and that Berger’s credentials don’t satisfy §2169 against a diagnostic radiologist. | Court concluded Berger’s neuroradiology credentials are directly relevant; no specialty deficiency like in Woodard; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich 545 (Mich. 2006) (plaintiff’s expert must match the defendant physician’s specialty or subspecialty in which the defendant was practicing at the time of the alleged malpractice)
- Reeves v. Carson City Hosp, 274 Mich App 622 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant’s actual practice area at time of alleged malpractice determines required specialty for plaintiff’s expert)
- Crego v. Edward W. Sparrow Hosp. Ass’n, 327 Mich App 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) (statutory construction principles; standard of review for MCL 600.2169)
- Cox v. Bd. of Hosp. Managers for the City of Flint, 467 Mich 1 (Mich. 2002) (elements plaintiff must prove in medical malpractice action)
- Cudnik v. William Beaumont Hosp., 207 Mich App 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (standard of care is measured by how other doctors in the field would act)