Robert Filiatrault v. Kathleen M Perkins Do, 331541

Robert Filiatrault presented in late 2010–2011 with throat irritation, cough/gagging, and red (irritated) vocal cords; he was a former smoker and heavy alcohol user.
Dr. Perkins (family medicine) treated and referred him; Dr. Downs (otolaryngology) examined him Nov. 4, 2011 using flexible fiberoptic scope and saw only cord irritation; she diagnosed allergic rhinitis and laryngopharyngeal reflux and advised follow-up.
A chest CT performed Nov. 3, 2011 partly imaged the larynx; interpreting radiologist Tarr later testified he saw no radiographic evidence of a mass in the portions imaged.
A neck mass consistent with laryngeal cancer was discovered on CT on Nov. 21, 2012 (glottic mass extending above and below the true vocal cords); patient later had chemo/radiation and was cancer-free by 2014 but died in 2016 of unrelated causes.
Plaintiffs sued for malpractice alleging two narrowed theories: (1) failure to order a neck CT timely and (2) failure to warn patient that symptoms might indicate cancer; defendants moved for summary disposition arguing lack of proximate causation.
Trial court denied summary disposition; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed only proximate-causation issues and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to order an earlier neck CT was a cause-in-fact of delayed cancer diagnosis	Failure to order neck CT more likely than not delayed detection; experts (family med & ENT) say chest CT inadequate to visualize larynx	Radiologist Tarr testified the actual 2011 CT imaged part of the larynx and showed no mass; plaintiffs offered no admissible contrary radiologic opinion	Reversed as to this theory: plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence showing it was more likely than not that an earlier neck CT would have detected the cancer sooner
Whether failure to warn patient that symptoms might indicate cancer caused delayed diagnosis (failure-to-warn)	Plaintiff’s family-medicine expert opined the word “cancer” might have made patient more attentive; plaintiff’s affidavit states he would have followed recommendations immediately if warned	Defendants contend experts’ and plaintiff’s statements are speculative given plaintiff’s history of noncompliance	Affirmed as to this theory: plaintiff’s affidavit created a genuine factual dispute for trial; expert’s speculation was weak but credibility is for the factfinder

Robins v. Garg, 276 Mich. App. 351 (discussing summary disposition standard and proximate causation in medical malpractice)
Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc., 500 Mich. 1 (summary disposition burden-shifting when nonmovant has ultimate burden at trial)
Elher v. Misra, 499 Mich. 11 (elements plaintiff must prove in medical malpractice action)
Albro v. Drayer, 303 Mich. App. 758 (expert testimony limits under MRE 702 and scope of expertise)
Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153 (distinguishing reasonable inference from speculation for causation)