Baldwin v. Williams, Docket No. 48359

• Decision Date: 20 February 1981
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48359
• Citation: 306 N.W.2d 314,104 Mich.App. 735
• Parties: Alice R. BALDWIN and Thomas E. Baldwin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dale WILLIAMS, M.D., and Douglas Giese, M.D., jointly and severally,Defendants-Appellees. 104 Mich.App. 735, 306 N.W.2d 314
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 314

306 N.W.2d 314

Alice R. BALDWIN and Thomas E. Baldwin Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dale WILLIAMS, M.D., and Douglas Giese, M.D., jointly and severally,Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 48359.

104 Mich.App. 735, 306 N.W.2d 314

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Feb. 20, 1981.

Released for Publication June 16, 1981.

[104 MICHAPP 736] William C. Gage, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward D. Wells, Grand Rapids, for Dale Williams, M.D.

Robert N. Alt, Jr., Grand Rapids, for Douglas Giese, M.D.

Before ALLEN, P. J., and J. H. GILLIS and WALSH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against defendants. After a six-day [104 MICHAPP 737] jury trial in April, 1979, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was subsequently denied by the court.

On July 8, 1972, plaintiff Alice Baldwin sustained a shoulder injury while working as a nurse's aide at Hackley Hospital in Muskegon, Michigan. Plaintiff sought treatment at the hospital's employee health service center. Defendant Dr. Williams examined and treated Alice on numerous occasions from July through November, 1972. In December, Alice was referred to defendant Dr. Giese, an orthopedic specialist, who prescribed different medication and physical therapy. Dr. Giese examined Alice again in March, 1973. An anthrogram taken on April 10, 1973, disclosed a tear in the rotator cuff of the shoulder. After Dr. Giese withdrew as Alice's physician, surgery was performed in July, 1973, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

At the close of plaintiffs' proofs, both defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis that plaintiffs had failed to present any specific expert testimony establishing that defendants had breached any duties owed plaintiffs. The trial court agreed and stated:

"There are standards which might pertain to Dr. Giese, but a review of the record indicates no expert testimony to the effect that Dr. Giese violated any of the standard (sic) imposed upon orthopedic surgeons in 1972 with reference to this case.

"As a result of the Court's view and conclusions of the law, I find that there is, that this case should not be allowed to go to the jury.

"The Court finds that extensive review of this record with reference to Dr. Williams fails to establish testimony[104 MICHAPP 738] from an expert witness that Dr. Williams violated standards of professional conduct. There are many standards set out. There are inferences from the facts in this case as to violation of those standards. But, there is no testimony from an expert witness that there is in fact violation of the standards.

"As a result, plaintiff has not met her burden of proving a prima facie case, and I grant the motion * * *."

Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdicts because the ultimate conclusion concerning the violation of the appropriate standard of care is a factual question for the jury and need not be supplied by expert testimony. We agree and remand for a new trial.

A directed verdict in favor of a defendant is proper where the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of liability. Patelczyk v. Olson, 95 Mich.App. 281, 283, 289 N.W.2d 910 (1980); Blanchard v. Monical Machinery Co., 84 Mich.App. 279, 282, 269 N.W.2d 564 (1978).

Expert testimony is necessary in cases where specialized knowledge "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue". MRE 702. In Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 140, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961), the Supreme Court established the following rule:

"In a case involving professional service the ordinary layman is not equipped by common knowledge and experience to judge of the skill and competence of that service and determine whether it squares with the standard of such professional practice in the community. For that, the aid of expert testimony from those learned in the profession involved...