Siirila v. Barrios, Docket No. 16222

• Decision Date: 24 February 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 16222,No. 3,3
• 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
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

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.

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 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 owed to a patient by a community of specialists. Whatever the considerations were that allowed the area practice to set the standard for the country general practitioners--they are not relevant to a metropolitan specialist-- calling a specialist parochial or bucolic is hardly appropriate.

'The reliance of the public upon the skills of a specialist and the wealth and sources of his knowledge are not limited to the geographic area in which he practices. Rather his knowledge is a speciality. He specializes so that he may keep abreast. Any other standard for a specialist would negate the fundamental expectations and purpose of a speciality. The standard of care for a specialist should be that of a reasonable specialist practicing medicine in the light of present day scientific knowledge. Therefore, geographical conditions or circumstances control neither the standard of a specialist's care nor the competence of an expert's testimony.'

This Court declined to extend the Naccarato holding in Burton v. Smith, 34 Mich.App. 270, 191 N.W.2d 77 (1971), and stated, p. 273, 191 N.W.2d p. 79:

'In Naccarato the Court did not ex-examine the standard of care for a general practitioner. Consequently, the standard for general practitioners continues to be the standard of such professional practice as that in the community or similar communities.'

Plaintiffs claim the trial court should have directed the jury to return a verdict finding the defendants negligent in their care and treatment of James Siirila. They claim that Dr....