Orozco v. Henry Ford Hospital, Docket No. 62422

• Decision Date: 31 March 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 62422
• Citation: 290 N.W.2d 363,408 Mich. 248
• Parties: Rutilio OROZCO and Dora Orozco, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HENRY FORD HOSPITAL and Dr. J. L. Ponka, Defendants-Appellees. 408 Mich. 248, 290 N.W.2d 363
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 363

290 N.W.2d 363

Rutilio OROZCO and Dora Orozco, his wife Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HENRY FORD HOSPITAL and Dr. J. L. Ponka Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 62422.

408 Mich. 248, 290 N.W.2d 363

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 31, 1980.

Clifford R. Williams, Detroit, for plaintiffs.

Kitch & Suhrheinrich, P. C., Detroit, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

In this medical malpractice case, the trial judge granted the defendants a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's proofs because the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony on the standard of care required in the performance of the operation allegedly leading to his injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed:

"Since the intricacies of the surgical procedure involved and the cause or causes of plaintiff's subsequent condition are beyond the common experience and knowledge of laymen, expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care and to determine whether or not defendants breached that standard. Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961)."

We disagree and reverse.

In 1972 Rutilio Orozco suffered a double inguinal hernia while working at a Ford Motor Company factory and entered the hospital for surgical repair. Orozco had had two previous hernias, in 1953 and 1968; both were operated on successfully with no aftereffects.

Orozco entered the hospital with two testicles of normal size. The night of the operation, following the operation, the right testicle was greatly swollen; a doctor ordered that it be packed in ice. When Orozco left the hospital the testicle was the size of a grapefruit, dark and discolored. The swelling decreased and over a few weeks' time the testicle shrank to a small black nubbin, measuring 1.3 centimeters.

In his medical malpractice action against Ford Hospital and several doctors, Orozco contended that his atrophied testicle was the result of the impairment of the blood supply to the testicle which occurred during the course of the operation.

At trial Orozco offered the following testimony of a medical expert:

"The patient states categorically that his testicle was normal size prior to the herniorrhaphy. I have no way of stating positively that the testicle was of normal size, but I suspect that if one reads the history and physical examination prior to the herniorrhaphy, the statement as to scrotal contents and testicular size will be there. At the present time, it is quite apparent that the patient has a normal left testicle and scrotal content and a very small right testicle. This is compatible with testicular atrophy that one sees sometimes following herniorrhaphy when the blood supply to the testicle which arrives at the testicle by way of the spermatic cord passing through the inguinal canal is damaged. On the other hand, this could be compatible with an atrophic testicle secondary to something like mumps orchitis occurring previously or a congenital atrophic testicle. I think the important information as to the etiology of this small testicle relates to the occurrences in the scrotum at the time immediately following the herniorrhaphy. The other important point again, is the matter of the record at the Henry Ford Hospital regarding testicular sizes prior to the herniorrhaphy. A history of the great scrotal swelling followed by the decrease in the swelling and then followed again by the decrease in the size of the testicle to its present size is strongly suggestive of impairment of blood supply at the time of hernia repair. I am only able to describe what I see and only state by conjecture what might be the etiology." (Emphasis supplied.)

Orozco himself testified:

"They freeze me only half a side and when they supposed to make me sleep. Dr. Ponka, he told another doctor, he say, 'I finished in 45 minutes.' He say, 'Well, I'm ready I'm ready, all I need to finish this little think (sic ) in there.' He say, 'if you work at what you do, you can do the same way I'm do oops, I cut in wrong place.'

"Q. (By Mr. Williams, Attorney for Plaintiff, continuing ): Who said that?

"A. The same thing I say again. I don't know his name. This is why I'm asking for justice 'oops, I cut in the wrong place.' I am the hurt for the rest of my life."

The defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of Orozco's case, arguing that there was no expert testimony that impairment of the blood supply to the testicles is not a usual occurrence in herniorrhaphy operations and no expert testimony as to the standard of care exercised by Dr. Ponka.

Orozco argued that it was unnecessary to offer expert testimony to prove that the defendant physician violated the standard of practice because injury to a healthy...