Ma'kieran Moss v. Hutzel Women's Hospital

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 25, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
150397 & (82) Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
EBONY WHITE, Conservator for MA’KIERAN Richard H. Bernstein,
MOSS, Minor, Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v SC: 150397
COA: 304221
Wayne CC: 08-106604-NH
HUTZEL WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, a/k/a
HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,
and
SUSAN BERMAN, M.D., NICOLE MAHONEY,
M.D. and SHUKRI ABDULLAH, M.D.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2014
judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-
appellant are considered. 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
light 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.
2
The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is DENIED as moot.
BERNSTEIN, J. (dissenting).
I disfavor a peremptory reversal here because I believe that a jury is better suited
than this Court to make the factual findings necessary for a determination of causation. I
would deny leave to appeal and permit this case to continue to a new trial, as ordered by
the Court of Appeals.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 25, 2015
t0922
Clerk