Siirila v. Barrios, Docket No. 16222

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Writing for the Court: R. B. BURNS
• Citation: 58 Mich.App. 721,228 N.W.2d 801
• Parties: James Scott SIIRILA, a minor, by his next friend, James Siirila, and James Siirila, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Honorato BARRIOS, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees
• Docket Number: Docket No. 16222,No. 3,3
• Decision Date: 24 February 1975

Page 801

228 N.W.2d 801 58 Mich.App. 721 James Scott SIIRILA, a minor, by his next friend, James
Siirila, and James Siirila, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Honorato BARRIOS, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 16222. Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3. Feb. 24, 1975.
Released for Publication May 12, 1975.

Page 802

[58 Mich.App. 722] Michael H. Feiler, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John D. Peacock, Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt & Peacock, Detroit, for Barrios.

John M. McCarthy, McLean & McCarthy, Houghton, for St. Joseph's Hospital.

Before BASHARA, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and ALLEN, JJ.

R. B. BURNS, Judge.

This is a malpractice suit wherein the plaintiffs ask us to extend the holding of Naccarato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248, 180 N.W.2d 788 (1970), to general practitioners. This we cannot do. Such action can only be taken by the Supreme Court. As an intermediate appellate court we are [58 Mich.App. 723] bound by Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961).

James Scott Siirila was born 3 1/2 months prematurely. He was immediately placed in an 'isolette' where controlled oxygen was given to him for two months. He contracted retrolental fibroplasia, a scarring of the eye tissue, resulting in total, permanent blindness. Plaintiffs claim the disease was caused by his continued exposure to oxygen while in the isolette.

At trial, plaintiffs attempted to have a Dr. Matthews testify as to the proper care and treatment of premature babies and the danger of oxygen therapy. Dr. Matthews is a specialist in pediatrics from Marquette. Dr. Barrios is a general practitioner in Houghton.

Until the Naccarato case the law in Michigan was as set forth in Lince v. Monson, Supra, i.e., generally, it is necessary in order to establish a cause of action for malpractice that there be expert testimony that what the attending physician did was contrary to the practice in that and similar communities or that he omitted to do something which was ordinarily done in that or similar communities.

In Naccarato, pp. 253--254, 180 N.W.2d p. 790, it was stated:

'In reaching our decision today, we rely on the reasoning in Wood v. Vroman, 215 Mich. 449, 184 N.W. 520 (1921): (Where the defendant holds himself out as a specialist he) is 'obligated to bring to the discharge of his duty that degree of skill and knowledge possessed by physicians who are specialists in the Light of present day scientific knowledge.' (Wood v. Vroman, Supra, 465--466, 184 N.W. (520) 525.) (Emphasis added in Naccarato.)

'It is therefore unnecessary to consider in this opinion whether a standard of parochial negligence can obviate the requirement of reasonable care by a local practitioner. At issue here is the standard of care...