AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Basha diagnostics4/9/2023 Instead, the plaintiff's injury is the corporeal harm that results from the defendant's alleged failure to meet the recognized standard of care. In the medical-malpractice context, it is clear that the plaintiff's injury is not merely the defendant's alleged failure to meet the recognized standard of care. The case at bar is a medical-malpractice action. Sinan remained at all relevant times in Wayne County, where he then began to treat plaintiff in reliance on defendants' alleged failure to properly read the x-ray. Defendants allegedly misread the x-ray, and communicated their findings to Dr. An x-ray was taken in Wayne County, but was sent to be read by defendants in Oakland County. Sinan treated plaintiff for his wrist injury in Wayne County. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he fell and injured his left wrist. Partially relying on Karpinski, defendants suggest that venue is proper in Oakland County because the original injury was the misreading of the x-ray and because plaintiff merely “continue to suffer an injury” in Wayne County. As the Karpinski Court explained, the “Legislature clearly did not intend to allow venue to be established in any county where the plaintiff continues to suffer from an injury.” Id. However, this Court reversed, concluding that the “original injury” had occurred in Macomb County, where the medical malpractice occurred, rather than in Wayne County, where the decedent's death occurred. The defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to Macomb County, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff sued the Macomb County hospital for medical malpractice in the Wayne Circuit Court, alleging that hospital staff had failed to timely diagnose and treat the decedent's condition. In Karpinski, supra, the decedent was allegedly misdiagnosed at a hospital in Macomb County, then died of a ruptured aneurysm while being transported to a hospital in Wayne County. Accordingly, to determine venue in tort actions, it is necessary to identify the actual place of occurrence of the damage or injury that gives rise to the plaintiff's cause of action. The modifying word “original” means “ ‘belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something,’ ” or “ ‘first in order.’ ” Karpinski, supra at 544, 606 N.W.2d 45 (citations omitted). In the tort context, the word “injury” is generally understood to mean “ ‘ny wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property.’ ” Id., quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. However, the phrase “original injury” is not defined in the statute. Thus, the venue statute specifically requires a determination of the place where “the original injury” occurred. Colucci, supra at 94, 662 N.W.2d 87 Karpinski, supra at 543, 606 N.W.2d 45.įor purposes of this case, MCL 600.1629(1)(a) provides that venue in tort and other legal actions seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death is proper in “he county in which the original injury occurred” and in which “he defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business” MCL 600.1629(1)(a)(i ). If the statute is unambiguous on its face, a court must apply it as written. A court must first examine the specific language of the statute, giving effect to its ordinary and generally accepted meaning. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent. To the extent that the question involves statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. In general, we review for clear error a trial court's decision to grant a motion to change venue. This appeal is being decided without oral argument. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In this medical-malpractice action, plaintiff appeals by delayed leave granted the trial court's order granting defendants' motion to change venue from Wayne County to Oakland County pursuant to MCL 600.1629(1) (a). Blake, Kirchner, Symonds, Larson, Kennedy & Smith, P.C. (by Allan Falk), Okemos, for the plaintiff. Decided: February 06, 2007īefore: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and COOPER, JJ.Īllan Falk, P.C. BASHA DIAGNOSTICS, P.C., and Adolfo Melicor, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |