O’neal v. St John Hospital & Medical Center
487 Mich. 485, 791 N.W.2d 853 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In traditional medical malpractice actions, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence was 'more probably than not' 'a proximate cause' of the injury, and the second sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2) (the greater than 50% opportunity requirement) applies exclusively to loss-of-opportunity claims, not traditional malpractice claims. The Fulton percentage point differential analysis for proximate causation in traditional malpractice is overruled as it improperly altered this burden of proof.
Facts:
- Raymond O'Neal suffered from sickle cell anemia and developed acute chest syndrome (ACS), a known complication.
- O'Neal claimed his ACS was misdiagnosed as pneumonia, leading to incorrect treatment.
- O'Neal's medical experts opined that ACS requires timely aggressive blood or exchange transfusions.
- O'Neal eventually received a transfusion, but his experts testified it was given too late.
- O'Neal suffered a disabling stroke as a consequence of the delayed transfusion.
- O'Neal alleged that defendants' failure to provide a timely transfusion violated the standard of care and was a proximate cause of his stroke.
- O'Neal's hematology experts testified that a patient with ACS has a 10% to 20% chance of developing a stroke, which is reduced to less than 5% to 10% with a timely exchange transfusion.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond O'Neal filed a medical malpractice complaint against defendants (St. John Hospital & Medical Center) in the trial court.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing O'Neal's expert testimony on proximate causation was insufficient under MCL 600.2912a(2) and Fulton, treating it as a loss-of-opportunity claim.
- The trial court denied defendants' motion, ruling O'Neal had presented sufficient testimony to establish a question of fact on proximate causation.
- The Court of Appeals denied defendants' interlocutory application for leave to appeal.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition, holding that O'Neal's claim was for loss of opportunity and failed to meet the burden of proof under MCL 600.2912a(2) as interpreted by Fulton.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to review the matter.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the second sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2), requiring proof that an opportunity was greater than 50%, apply to traditional medical malpractice claims, and did Fulton v William Beaumont Hosp's percentage point differential analysis correctly set forth the burden of proof for proximate causation in such claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Hathaway, J.
No, the second sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2) does not apply to traditional medical malpractice claims, and Fulton's percentage point differential analysis for proximate causation was incorrect for such claims. The Court determined that O'Neal's claim was for traditional medical malpractice, not loss of opportunity. The first sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2) merely reiterates the common-law rule that a plaintiff must prove the injury 'more probably than not was proximately caused' by the defendant's negligence, consistent with 'a proximate cause' rather than 'the proximate cause.' The Fulton analysis, which used a simplistic percentage point differential subtraction, erroneously transformed the burden of proof by implying there could only be one proximate cause and focused on statistical probabilities of a better outcome rather than the actual injury. O'Neal's experts' testimony, indicating that defendants' negligence more probably than not caused his stroke (e.g., responsible for 15 percentage points out of a 20 percentage point risk, or 75% responsibility), was sufficient to establish a question of fact on proximate causation. The Court explicitly overruled Fulton to the extent it caused courts to misdesignate traditional malpractice claims as loss-of-opportunity claims and improperly altered the burden of proof for traditional claims.
Concurring - Cavanagh, J.
Yes, the Court of Appeals' judgment should be reversed because it erroneously treated this as a loss-of-opportunity case. Fulton should be overruled for improperly transforming traditional medical malpractice claims. Cavanagh, J., agreed that the second sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2) applies only to loss-of-opportunity claims. He opined that for traditional malpractice, the 'more probable than not' cause-in-fact standard is met if the defendant's alleged negligence was responsible for 'more than fifty percent' of the total risk of the bad result occurring. He explicitly rejected the Fulton 'percentage point differential' and the majority's 'percent-increase' test. Applying his approach, O'Neal's experts' testimony (15 percentage points of increased risk attributable to defendants out of a total 20 percentage point risk, or 75% responsibility) satisfied the 'more probable than not' standard for cause-in-fact.
Concurring - Weaver, J.
Yes, Weaver, J., fully concurred with Justice Hathaway's majority opinion, emphasizing that overruling the Court of Appeals' decision in Fulton does not constitute overturning Supreme Court precedent. In her concurrence, she addressed Justice Young's dissent regarding stare decisis, asserting that stare decisis is a 'principle of policy,' not an 'inexorable command,' and that courts should be willing to depart from precedent when fidelity to it damages the constitutional ideal of the rule of law, especially in cases of judicial activism.
Concurring in the result only - Markman, J.
No, Markman, J., concluded that this is a loss-of-opportunity case because the bad outcome (stroke) could have occurred even if O'Neal had received proper treatment. However, he concurred in the result because O'Neal raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he suffered a greater than 50% loss of an opportunity under MCL 600.2912a(2). He argued that Fulton was wrongly decided for requiring a loss of '50 percentage points' instead of '50 percent' and for failing to differentiate between patients who would have survived regardless and those who needed proper treatment. He applied the 'Waddell formula' (pre-malpractice chance - post-malpractice chance) / (100 - post-malpractice chance) * 100, finding O'Neal lost a 75% opportunity, which is greater than 50%. Markman, J., strongly disagreed with the majority's analysis that makes the classification of a claim dependent on a plaintiff's pleading or allows any formula that benefits the plaintiff, viewing it as illogical and undermining statutory requirements.
Dissenting - Young, J.
No, Young, J., dissented, arguing that this is a 'prototypical lost opportunity claim' because O'Neal's experts could not establish 'but for' causation for the stroke itself, only an increased risk of stroke. Traditional medical malpractice claims, he contended, require 'but for' causation, meaning the injury would not have occurred absent the defendant's actions, and must 'exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty.' He asserted that the majority's decision radically alters medical malpractice law by equating causation of injury with risk of injury, essentially eliminating traditional 'but for' causation for all such claims, and that Justices Cavanagh, Kelly, and Weaver had repudiated their prior positions on causation. He also criticized the majority's statistical analysis as 'mathematically illiterate' and inconsistent with sound methodology. Young, J., maintained that MCL 600.2912a(2) remains unenforceable due to its internal inconsistencies and called for legislative clarification.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between traditional medical malpractice and loss-of-opportunity claims in Michigan, impacting how plaintiffs must plead and prove causation. By overruling Fulton, the Court eased the burden of proof for proximate causation in traditional medical malpractice, particularly in cases involving pre-existing conditions, by rejecting the restrictive 'percentage point differential' and reinforcing the 'a proximate cause' standard. This decision makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive motions for summary disposition and have their cases heard by a trier of fact. However, the fractured nature of the opinions, particularly regarding the appropriate mathematical formulas and the scope of loss-of-opportunity claims, indicates that this area of law remains complex and subject to further interpretation.
