Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp.
Decision Date | 28 April 1989 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 100397 |
Citation | 175 Mich.App. 647,438 N.W.2d 276 |
Parties | Ella Lee BRONSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Stegman & Kelin, P.C. by Alexander M. Kelin, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, P.C. by Susan Healy Zitterman, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before CYNAR, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ERNST, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order awarding summary disposition to defendant. On March 4, 1984, plaintiff filed a malpractice action against Dr. Willard Holt, Jr., an anesthesiologist on staff at defendant hospital. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered cardiorespiratory arrest as a proximate result of Dr. Holt's negligence in administering an epidural steroid block on April 18, 1982. Plaintiff's action against Dr. Holt is not the subject of this appeal.
On April 3, 1985, plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging that defendant hospital was negligent and breached its duty to plaintiff:
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting that plaintiff's claim was barred by the running of the two-year period of limitation for malpractice actions, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5805(4); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5805(4). Plaintiff argues that her lawsuit against defendant was founded on ordinary negligence, not malpractice, and accordingly was governed by a three-year period of limitation, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5805(8); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5805(8), and thus was filed in a timely manner. The trial court disagreed and entered its order for summary disposition and dismissal.
When reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7), this Court accepts all of the plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations as true and construes them most favorably to the plaintiff. Male v. Mayotte, Crouse & D'Haene Architects, Inc., 163 Mich.App. 165, 168, 413 N.W.2d 698 (1987). A review of plaintiff's complaint reveals that plaintiff seeks to impose liability on defendant hospital for independent acts of negligence committed by the hospital; plaintiff does not seek to hold defendant vicariously liable for Dr. Holt's alleged malpractice. The precise issue presented for review is whether an action brought against a hospital asserting negligent selection, retention, and supervision of staff doctors is an action for malpractice against the hospital for purposes of the statute of limitations.
In Kambas v. St. Joseph's Mercy Hospital of Detroit, 389 Mich. 249, 205 N.W.2d 431 (1973), our Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the two-year statutory period of limitation applied to an action against a registered nurse for her alleged negligence. The Court, construing the then pertinent provisions of the Revised Judicature Act, held that it did not. Noting that the RJA did not define "malpractice," the Court found persuasive the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court in Richardson v. Doe, 176 Ohio St. 370, 371-372, 199 N.E.2d 878 (1964):
" 'Malpractice in relation to the care of the human body has been defined as the failure of a member of the medical profession, employed to treat a case professionally, to fulfill the duty, which the law implies from the employment, to exercise that degree of skill, care and diligence exercised by members of the same profession, practicing in the same or a similar locality, in the light of the present state of medical science.
* * * * * *
" " Kambas, supra, 389 Mich. pp. 254-255, 205 N.W.2d 431.
In 1975, the Legislature amended Sec. 5838 of the RJA, the section defining when a claim for professional malpractice accrues, by listing additional groups it wished to protect. 1975 P.A. 142. Following amendment by 1975 P.A. 142, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5838; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5838 provided:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers
...Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich. 26, 45, 594 N.W.2d 455 (1999), citing Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 175 Mich.App. 647, 652, 438 N.W.2d 276 (1989). A hospital may be 1) directly liable for malpractice, through claims of negligence in supervision of staff phys......
-
Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc.
...decisions fall under the malpractice rules. See, e.g., id. (staffing and patient monitoring); Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 175 Mich.App. 647, 438 N.W.2d 276 (Mich.Ct.App.1989) (supervision and staffing decisions); Waatti v. Marquette Gen'l Hosp., 122 Mich.App. 44, 329 N.W.2d 52......
-
Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc.
...medical malpractice, and thus the medical malpractice statute of limitations was inapplicable); Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp. , 175 Mich.App. 647, 648-650, 654, 438 N.W.2d 276 (1989) (holding, after examining the complaint alone in a case deciding an MCR 2.116(C)(7) motion, that ......
-
Stover v. Garfield
...in Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich. 26, 45-46, 594 N.W.2d 455 (1999): In Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 175 Mich.App. 647, 438 N.W.2d 276 (1989), the plaintiff's complaint included allegations that the defendant hospital had failed to supervise and adequately ......