Stacey White v. Gerald Schell Md
329640
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stacey White sued Dr. Gerald Schell and associated defendants for medical malpractice after a lumbar procedure at L5–S1; she alleged wrong procedure/technique left her in increased right-leg pain and disabled.
- Plaintiff’s experts (Drs. Lustgarten and Shah) testified defendant misdiagnosed and failed to decompress/stabilize the pars defect, causing increased radicular pain and requiring subsequent surgery by Dr. Shah.
- Defendant and his expert (Dr. Rapp) testified the procedure complied with the standard of care, spinal fusion sometimes fails, and nerve injury/neurologic worsening is a known risk even with proper technique.
- Evidence showed plaintiff had a history of right-sided leg pain before defendant’s surgery; postoperative records were disputed as to whether the leg pain was new or preexisting.
- Jury found defendant negligent and plaintiff injured, but concluded defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s ongoing injury; trial court denied plaintiff’s motions for JNOV or new trial.
- Plaintiff also challenged admission of her Social Security disability application; the court allowed it for impeachment of her earnings testimony, and held any error would be harmless because damages were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence such that a new trial is required | White: jury’s finding of negligence but no causation is inconsistent; evidence showed increased pain and need for further surgery caused by Schell | Schell: evidence conflicted; known surgical risks and preexisting pain made causation a jury question | Denied — conflicting evidence made causation a jury determination; no miscarriage of justice |
| Whether JNOV was proper because evidence could not support verdict absolving defendant of causation | White: reasonable jurors could only conclude negligence caused harm so JNOV required | Schell: reasonable jurors could differ given experts and preexisting symptoms | Denied — sufficient evidence existed to submit causation to jury |
| Admissibility of plaintiff’s Social Security disability application under collateral-source rule | White: admission improperly suggested collateral source and prejudiced jury | Schell: admissible to impeach plaintiff’s inconsistent earnings testimony; not offered to show collateral payment for damages | Admitted — proper for impeachment; any error harmless because jury did not reach damages |
| Standard for proving proximate causation in medical malpractice | White: causation established by experts tying increased pain to defendant’s procedure | Schell: causation not established beyond possibility; nerve injury can occur despite proper care | Held: plaintiff failed to prove causation to the jury’s satisfaction; proximate cause is factual question for jury when evidence conflicts |
Key Cases Cited
- Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 286 Mich. App. 528 (discusses standard for JNOV)
- Merkur Steel Supply, Inc. v. Detroit, 261 Mich. App. 116 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party on JNOV)
- Foreman v. Foreman, 266 Mich. App. 132 (jury verdict must be sustained if reasonable jurors could differ)
- Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., 302 Mich. App. 7 (de novo review of JNOV rulings)
- Wischmeyer v. Schanz, 449 Mich. 469 (elements plaintiff must prove in medical malpractice)
- Haliw v. City of Sterling Hts., 464 Mich. 297 (cause-in-fact requires ‘but for’ causation)
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153 (circumstantial proof cannot be mere speculation)
- Unger, People v., 278 Mich. App. 210 (new trial for verdict against great weight of evidence standard)
- Dawe v. Bar‑Levav & Assoc. (On Remand), 289 Mich. App. 380 (weight of expert testimony is for jury)
- Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 435 Mich. 33 (collateral source rule bars evidence of collateral payments for damages)
- Rock v. Crocker, 308 Mich. App. 155 (collateral-source evidence may be admissible for impeachment/malingering)
- Powell v. St. John Hosp., 241 Mich. App. 64 (credibility of witness and impeachment are proper jury considerations)