*1 v WILLIAMBEAUMONTHOSPITAL CALLAHAN Court Negligence Malpractice Specialists—Similar 1. —Medical — Com- munity of Care. Rule —Standard specialists exempted community” Medical from the "similar are only to the standard of care of a rule and are held reasonable light specialist practicing present day medicine in the scien- knowledge. tific Negligence Malpractice 2. —Medical —General Practitioners— Community Similar Rule —Standard of Care. practitioners General medical continue to be to the "simi- Michigan community” lar rule and in are held to that diligence ordinarily average skill and exercised members profession in the same or similar medical localities with profession due consideration to the state of the at the time. Negligence Malpractice Specialists—General 3. —Medical — Prac- Community Expert titioners —Similar Rule — Witnesses. specialist acting general practitioner A medical who is as a is not rule; exempted from the "similar where a defend- surgeon practicing surgery utilizing ant doctor is a but or any special acting any skills and is as would other doctor in room, treating patient duty emergency while on community applies similar and it is not error for the trial disqualify, as an the doctor from other testify than same or similar who is to standard of care for the defendant doctor. Expert X-rays— 4. Witnesses — Witnesses —Standard of Care — Trial court —Discretion. ruling A trial court’s that a doctor is as an witness as to the standard of care of those References for Points in Headnotes 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, 61 Am Jur and Other Healers 198 [1-7] § et seq. Admissibility malpractice, reputation in action for of evidence as to physician or for skill and care. 48 ALR2d Beaumont plaintiffs x-rays hospital employees who examined cannot be where the doctor witness considered abuse discretion radiologist on voir dire that he not a and had admitted read, by training quote, x-rays. entitled *2 Expert 5. Verdict — Trial —Directed Qualifications— Witnesses — Jury Questions. granting A a directed in trial court erred in verdict favor of a proceedings point in the defendant doctor at a where the plaintiffs’ expert been ruled witness had community in as to standard of care which plaintiffs practicing but before the defendant doctor was case; presentation of their concluded should their have been allowed to entire case the motion for directed before the trial court ruled on Negligence Malpractice X-rays—Diagnosis—Di- 6. —Medical — Jury rected Verdict — Questions. patient’s x-rays A defendant doctor who not viewed a has but person’s report x-rays relies on another on the instead automatically liability negligence failing relieved of for in properly patient’s fracture and a directed verdict fact that should not based the defendant doctor did personally; x-rays examine should have opportunity showing evidence that the defendant negligent ways, have doctor been such as that he reports unqualified persons relied on or that a visual examination would have revealed the and if fracture such questions jury question. factual are raised it becomes a by J. Expert Community 7. Witnesses — Witnesses —Similar Rule —Sur- geon Specialists. —Medical general surgeon special- A does not fall within the of a ist, consequently plaintiff’s expert witness, ",similar general surgeon, who is a rule”. Appeal Oakland, from Beer, William John (Docket 5, 1975, Submitted December at Detroit. 22831.) 22830, 10, Nos. February Decided applied Leave to appeal for.
Complaint by Patricia N. Callahan and Kenneth R. William Beaumont App 306 damages for Edward Jerome The trial court malpractice. resulting medical to Dr. Feldstein as dismissal entered order Plaintiff declaring a mistrial. as an order well part, re- Affirmed granted. appeals leave proceed- for further and remanded part versed ings. Peisner, plaintiffs.
Balfour for Watters, Rutt, Plunkett, Stanczyk & Cooney, Jacobs), for defendant Wil- P. John (by Pedersen Hospital. liam Beaumont Bone, Sullivan, defendant Ranger, Ward & for Feldstein. McGregor, J., Bashara and Al- P.
Before: len, JJ. *3 Plaintiffs,
McGregor, P. J. Patricia N. Callahan husband, Callahan, brought R. her Kenneth and William Beaumont suit defendants Feldstein, alleg- Dr. Jerome Edward Hospital failing to negligence by the defendants ing alleged correctly treat an fracture right at the Patricia N. Callahan’s ankle plaintiff hospital’s emergency room. 22, 1974. April
A trial was commenced on plaintiffs’ presentation of their In the course of case, trial ruled Dr. Robert Huebner, as an witness by called tiffs, negli- competent testify to as to the not Dr. had of Dr. Feldstein because Huebner gence area. practiced metropolitan Detroit never also that Dr. could The trial court ruled Huebner testify negligence employees to the had x- hospital who examined plaintiff’s v Beaumont Opinion of the Court qualifications rays because Dr. Huebner lacked radiologist. rulings, granted Following the trial court these plaintiffs for a mistrial a motion plaintiffs so that emergency appeal.
could At seek completed time, same presentation before the case, the of their trial court also granted to be motion Dr. Feldstein dismissed the case a directed verdict no cause appli- Thereafter, of action. filed two appeal, granted cations for leave to and leave was May 28, this Court on assignment Plaintiffs’ first of error concerns the permit plaintiffs’ expert trial court’s refusal as to the standard imposed upon of care to be the defendant Dr. argue Feldstein. Plaintiffs and Dr. Feldstein were both that since Dr. Huebner
surgeons and,
there-
specialists,
fore,
Dr. Huebner’s
community”
to the "similar
and should have been allowed
the trial court.
argument
Supreme
Plaintiffs’
is based on the
holding
Grob,
Court’s
248;
in Naccarato v
decision,
Before that
all
Michigan
doctors in
were
held
"that
diligence ordinarily
skill and
exercised
the
in the
average
profession
members of the medical
same
similar localities with due consideration
profession
the state
at the time”.1 The
exempted specialists
decision, however,
Naccarato
rule,
from the "similar
them
only
spe-
standard
care of a reasonable
*4
practicing
light
present-
cialist
medicine in the
day
knowledge.
scientific
This decision did not
general
affect the standard of care
also
[1]
Bradshaw v
Lince
v
Monson,
Blaine,
363 Mich
1 Mich
135;
App
It from the Naccarato is clear grounded large to a decision was expectations public with re- reliance and spect by specialist. possessed the skills a Conse- specialist, quently, if a does become a he doctor public represents spe- thereby he has gen- knowledge possessed cial eral with the advances in his and skills a keeps practitioner he also abreast specialty. case, however,
In although utilizing any surgeon, practicing surgery
special skills when he within Barrios, [2] See Burton v But see Abbe Woman’s 58 Mich (1971), Smith, App 721; which 34 Mich specialist. held that a App 270; Association, general surgeon 191 NW2d [77] (1971), does not fall Siirila 429; *5 v Beaumont Opinion the Court wrapping plaintiff. Rather, in treated the plaintiff’s the bandage telling and in an Ace her ankle pain, aspirin to take acting for the Feldstein was any as would in the manner same emergency duty room of on at the the doctor defendant hospital. injury Furthermore, suf- plaintiff injury requiring not an fered surgeon, any nor there treatment indica- knowledge that that tion skills Dr. Feld- gained specialization any his stein way virtue of in prepared
better him examine treat the plaintiff’s injury. circumstances, Under these there holding special knowledge is no out skills or part any nor is there reliance knowledge special such skills or tiff. As we decline to extend pres- of the Naccarato decision facts of the underlying case, ent since rationale that deci- application has no sion here.
Moreover, this case involves treatment in the emergency large metropolitan hospital. room entirely possible It is the conditions emergency hospital in an room a of Detroit area emergency are so different those room hospital, any comparisons of a small-town made doctor a small-town doctor would be unfair to a
practicing hospital. big-city It is also possible that the number cases handled emergency big-city hospital room of a as well as signifi- the nature cases differ so cantly from the nature and volume of cases han- emergency hospi- dled tal room of a small-town comparisons procedures used in person seeking emergency each to examine treat- misleading. ment would be Factors such as these support application further munity” of the "local com-
rule to the facts of the Consequently, err in did not trial court negli- permitting Dr. Huebner gence Dr. Feldstein. reasons, it follows
For the same permitting Dr. in not Hueb- was also correct court ner *6 hospital’s give testimony the to plaintiffs x-rays. employees the who examined above, Furthermore, the trial court also noted give to was that Dr. Huebner ruled testimony Huebner was not a radi- Dr. since such ologist. dire, Huebner stated that he voir Dr.
On training quote, read, to was not entitled x-rays. admission, on this it Based from qualified appear Dr. Huebner was that would to those of care as to the standard x-rays. plaintiff’s employees examined who ruling on this the trial court’s matter As a of discretion. considered an abuse See cannot be Hospital Michigan, Smith Children's App 186, 188-189; 189 lastly the Plaintiffs contend that trial court by granting a verdict in favor of Dr. erred directed before the had concluded the Feldstein agree. presentation of their case. We plaintiffs’ attorney all, First of the indicated to present prepared court that he to the testimony concerning malpractice of Dr. Feld- plaintiffs may Thus, able, have been stein. even without negligence by sufficient evidence Dr.
Feldstein against warrant submission the case jury. him to the Plaintiffs should have their allowed entire case been court ruled before trial on motion for a directed
Secondly, appears it that the trial court directed having Feldstein, Dr. verdict because never Beaumont x-rays, reading seen the could not liable for improperly. was, directed them fact, If the verdict ground, it would have
based this been possible granted. improperly It is it tiffs could have fracture was such been simple Therefore, noticed in examination. visual spite Dr. Feldstein fact that have x-rays been been no indicated that there told possible fracture, it is that he should have personal observation that discovered plaintiff required just treatment than
more Ace bandage. depending addition, In such factors qualifications actually as rays who read the x- reported to Dr. the results it is possible negligent by also relying Feldstein was reports personally
on those and not read- ing x-rays.
Thus, even if Dr. did not read the x- rays, testimony, additional either or other- questions wise, have could raised several of fact *7 which the the negligence would have entitled to have by by issue Feldstein’s decided jury. As a court erred prematurely granting the motion for directed part. part.
Affirmed Reversed Remanded proceedings opinion. for with consistent this (concurring). agree J. in the decision Allen, I Judge opinion. McGregor’s announced How- solely ever, I do so the basis of v Abbe Woman’s App Association, 429; Mich 192 (1971), by Judge 691 cited in footnote McGregor, 3 general in which our Court held that a specialist. does fall within Consequently, plaintiffs expert general surgeon, was sub- ject "similar I rule”. do not
314 306 by go justify necessary further and towise it think our decision Grob, by v 384 to Naccarato reference by As was said 248; 180 NW2d Mich this Barrios, Siirila case of Court in the recent (1975): App 721; NW2d 801 Mich malpractice wherein ask "This is suit Grob, 384 holding Naccarato us to extend (1970), general practitioners. 248; This only can taken we cannot do. Such action Supreme v Barrios, supra, at Siirila Court.” colleague’s opinion My extends Naccarato per- drawing types of activities distinctions specialist. I do not believe the medical formed this so, If therein. it was intended taken which should be is a distinction importantly, Supreme the distinction Court. More necessary in this for the result arrived at