Detroit Circuit Court Says No Expert Required in Ordinary Negligence Cases
Detroit, MI - The Detroit Circuit Court denied St. John Detroit Riverview Hospital summary disposition premised on the absence of expert testimony supporting any breach of its duty of care.
An amended complaint filed by plaintiff alleged St. John's vicarious and independent liability in ordinary negligence premised on the actions of a social worker in preparing a discharge form regarding the decedent's home health care. St. John sought summary disposition of the 'ordinary negligence' allegations on the basis that they sounded in medical malpractice.
This case is trying to decide whether lay jurors could evaluate the amended complaint's allegations. The negligence allegations in the amended complaint arise from the deposition testimony of the social worker, who specifically described the general nature of her actions in preparing continuing patient care (CPC) forms. Although the social worker held degrees in social work, she denied that her preparation of the hospital's CPC forms would have involved her provision of social work-related assessments or activities. The social worker explained that when third-floor patients at the hospital were deemed ready for discharge, she would fill out CPC forms solely to facilitate 'discharge planning, setting up home care arrangements.
When specifically questioned why no mention of insulin appeared on the CPC concerning the deceased, White responded that this order came from the Doctor of the patient and we were dealing with the colostomy aspect of why the patient needed home care,' and that in addition to the medications specifically ordered by his doctor she had noted on the CPC, “Check medications at home,” as an instruction to the home care nurse to “also look at those medications the patient is on at home.”
We conclude that the amended complaint's allegations regarding the social worker's preparation of the CPC sound in ordinary negligence. The social worker's deposition testimony establishes that at no point in filling out CPCs at the hospital did she act in her capacity as a social worker or otherwise attempt to form an opinion regarding the decedent's medical condition. Furthermore, the social worker did not exercise independent medical judgment in filling out the CPCs, but instead simply copied or transferred onto the CPC forms the discharge-related information required by the CPC from existing, already available sources, primarily doctors' orders and the patient's chart's history and physical information, and sometimes from doctor progress notes in the chart. We conclude that no expert testimony concerning medical standards of care is necessary for a jury to properly evaluate the amended complaint's allegation and determine whether the social worker breached her duty of ordinary care when she omitted material information in compiling the CPC regarding the decedent."
