Nicole Stasser v. Paul W Clancy Dds
329002
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- On August 18, 2011 defendant (a dentist) extracted plaintiff's wisdom tooth; plaintiff thereafter had persistent left‑side tongue numbness.
- Defendant treated a dry socket and warned of possible lingual nerve injury that might recover; numbness persisted.
- Plaintiff saw other dentists and ultimately Dr. Joseph Helman (oral surgeon) who, on exploratory surgery, found the left lingual nerve severed and irreparable.
- Plaintiff sued for dental malpractice; defendant contended anesthesia toxicity or that Helman severed the nerve during exploration.
- A jury returned verdict for plaintiff for $151,093.23; defendant appealed challenging directed‑verdict/JNOV denials, use of res ipsa loquitur, and denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented sufficient expert proof of standard of care and breach to survive directed verdict/JNOV | Sikorski testified severing a lingual nerve during extraction violates the standard of care if nerve is in normal position; plaintiff presented evidence nerve was normally located and was severed during extraction. | Sikorski failed to specify a defective technique or instrument; without that, no prima facie malpractice showing. | Court: Expert testimony identifying the standard and that a normally located lingual nerve was severed sufficed; plaintiff need not prove a specific tool or technique. |
| Whether plaintiff proved causation (more likely than not defendant's negligence caused the injury) | Expert testimony (and Helman’s finding of distal nerve in normal position) made it more probable than not that the proximal nerve at the severed point was normally located and was severed by defendant. | Alternative causes: anesthetic toxicity or Helman severing the nerve during exploration. | Court: Substantial circumstantial evidence supported causation; directed verdict/JNOV properly denied. |
| Whether plaintiff could rely on res ipsa loquitur despite not pleading it | Plaintiff argued she proved negligence by ordinary expert proof and did not need res ipsa; court did not instruct jury on res ipsa. | Defendant argued res ipsa was not pleaded and elements not met; allowing it was erroneous. | Court: Res ipsa inapplicable but harmless—plaintiff proved negligence by direct evidence and the jury was not instructed on res ipsa. |
| Whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence warranting a new trial | Plaintiff relied on expert credibility and evidence that nerve was severed during extraction and in normal position. | Defendant argued conflicting evidence (anesthesia, Helman) made verdict manifestly against the weight of the evidence. | Court: Denial of new trial affirmed—the verdict was supported by competent evidence and credibility issues are for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 469 Mich 124 (standard for reviewing directed‑verdict/JNOV; view evidence favorable to nonmoving party)
- Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich 67 (elements of medical malpractice claim)
- Locke v. Pachtman, 446 Mich 216 (prima facie showing required to survive directed verdict)
- O’Neal v. St. John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 487 Mich 485 (legal and factual causation in medical malpractice)
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (circumstantial‑evidence standard for causation)
- Jones v. Porretta, 428 Mich 132 (elements and purpose of res ipsa loquitur)
- Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hosp., 257 Mich App 488 (standard for new trial based on weight of the evidence)
- Dawe v. Bar–Levav & Assoc., P.C., 289 Mich App 380 (deference to jury on credibility and expert weight)