White v. Hutzel Women’s Hospital

Michigan Supreme Court

White v. Hutzel Women’s Hospital

869 N.W.2d 275, 498 Mich. 881

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

Docket150397; Court of Appeals 304221

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 869 N.W.2d 275 (White v. Hutzel Women’s Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White v. Hutzel Women’s Hospital, 869 N.W.2d 275, 498 Mich. 881 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinions

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for entry of judgment in the defendant’s favor. To establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) cause in fact, and (2) legal, or proximate, cause. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162-163 (1994). A plaintiff proves that the defendant’s conduct was a cause in fact of his injuries only if he sets forth specific facts in evidence which support a reasonable inference of a logical cause and effect. Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 87-88 (2004). Here, the plaintiff’s expert witnesses have failed to prove any causal connection between non-reassuring heart tones on the fetal heart monitor and the plaintiff’s child’s resultant cerebral palsy. Any causal connection is speculative at best. When viewed in a fight most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence fails to establish her claim as a matter of law. Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391 (2000). The defendant was therefore entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id.

The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is denied as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for entry of judgment in the defendant’s favor. To establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) cause in fact, and (2) legal, or proximate, cause. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162-163 (1994). A plaintiff proves that the defendant’s conduct was a cause in fact of his injuries only if he sets forth specific facts in evidence which support a reasonable inference of a logical cause and effect. Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 87-88 (2004). Here, the plaintiff’s expert witnesses have failed to prove any causal connection between non-reassuring heart tones on the fetal heart monitor and the plaintiff’s child’s resultant cerebral palsy. Any causal connection is speculative at best. When viewed in a fight most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence fails to establish her claim as a matter of law. Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391 (2000). The defendant was therefore entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id.

The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 N.W.2d 275, 498 Mich. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-hutzel-womens-hospital-mich-2015.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack