Eugene Rogers v. St Joseph Mercy Health Systems
332117
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Eugene Rogers, a physician, was a patient at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and fell twice while attempting to reach the bathroom after allegedly pressing his room call button and waiting lengthy periods for assistance.
- Rogers claimed first wait ~30 minutes and a second wait ~45 minutes before each fall; he sustained head, back, and right shoulder injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued the hospital in ordinary negligence (and derivative loss of consortium) without serving a notice of intent or filing an affidavit of merit required for medical malpractice claims.
- The hospital moved for summary disposition arguing the claims sounded in medical malpractice because they arose within a professional relationship and implicated medical judgment.
- The trial court granted summary disposition; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding the claims arose in a professional relationship and implicated medical judgment related to staffing, monitoring, risk assessment, and patient prioritization.
- Plaintiffs did not produce documentary evidence showing a nonmedical cause (e.g., technical failure or intentional ignoring) for the lack of response to the call button and did not argue that further discovery was necessary before disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim sounds in ordinary negligence or medical malpractice | Rogers contends the hospital negligently failed to respond to call button—an ordinary negligence claim not requiring notice/affidavit | Hospital argues the incidents occurred within a professional relationship and involve medical judgment (staffing, monitoring, prioritization) making it malpractice | Held: Medical malpractice — both professional relationship and medical-judgment prongs satisfied; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether documentary evidence established a nonmedical explanation for delayed response | Plaintiffs argue facts (call-button use, long waits) support negligence inference | Hospital produced evidence and plaintiffs failed to show technical failure or intentional ignoring unrelated to medical judgment | Held: Plaintiffs did not raise a triable factual issue that the failures were nonmedical in nature |
| Whether lay jurors could evaluate reasonableness of staff response without expert testimony | Plaintiffs argue lay experience suffices to judge failure to respond to call button | Hospital contends evaluation requires nursing/medical expertise (risk assessments, patient condition, resource allocation) | Held: Evaluation implicates medical judgment beyond common knowledge; expert proof required |
| Whether summary disposition was premature due to outstanding discovery | Plaintiffs did not request additional discovery or claim prejudice from pending discovery | Hospital argued they were entitled to judgment on the record | Held: No claim of need for further discovery; summary disposition appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., Inc., 471 Mich 411 (medical malpractice requires professional relationship and questions of medical judgment)
- Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc., 316 Mich App 680 (distinguishing when lay jurors can assess handling/assistance without expert testimony)
- Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich 26 (staffing and monitoring decisions involve professional medical management)
- Sturgis Bank & Trust Co. v. Hillsdale Cmty. Health Ctr., 268 Mich App 484 (nursing experience necessary for fall-risk assessment and precautions)
- RDM Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Plastics Co., 281 Mich App 678 (summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7): consider documentary evidence in favor of nonmoving party)