Court Holds Fall From Hospital Stretcher During Transport Was Malpractice: As Leegwater, a registered nurse working in the defendant hospital’s emergency department, pushed the stretcher through the doorway to the radiology suite, 97-year-old Elaine Quick apparently moved her left leg through the rail of the stretcher and it collided with the doorframe. Quick sustained a fracture to her left leg because of the collision. Surgery was not recommended due to Quick’s age, and within a few weeks of sustaining the injury, Quick died.
The State of Michigan Court of Appeals (“Michigan Appellate Court”) stated in its Per Curiam unpublished Opinion dated June 16, 2022: “In this case, plaintiff concedes that a professional relationship exists, but contends that the act of pushing a stretcher does not raise “questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience” … We disagree. It is undisputed that Quick was a cervical-spine precaution patient. As a result, only a registered nurse or a doctor could transport her. Leegwater was acting in her capacity as a registered nurse. She testified that she used her knowledge and training in transporting patients with Quick’s medical condition when she moved Quick. Specifically, she ensured that Quick was on the stretcher, the rails were up, and that Quick had a blanket over her. She added that, because Quick was disorientated, there were additional risks associated with her transport so closer observation was required. Leegwater tried to take those additional risks into account during the transportation process. A jury relying only on common knowledge and experience would not know what would constitute proper transportation of a patient with Quick’s medical condition … Therefore, on this record, the trial court did not err by determining that the claim sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence.”
The Michigan Appellate Court held: “plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for an extension to submit a new affidavit of merit, with a new expert witness, to cure the defects in Flynn’s testimony. However, summary disposition was not granted because of any deficiencies in the affidavit of merit. Instead, it was granted because (1) plaintiff’s claim sounded in medical malpractice and (2) plaintiff’s standard-of-care witness—Flynn—was not qualified to testify as an expert. As a result, amendment of the affidavit would neither affect nor undermine the rationale or the basis upon which summary disposition was granted. See Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 316-317; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). The request to amend, therefore, was futile given that the claim was properly dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(10). On this record, given that the motion to submit a new affidavit of merit was made after the court determined that summary disposition was warranted, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion.”
Source Heenstra v. Spectrum Health Systems, COA 356399.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical negligence case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.