Medical malpractice; Total hip replacement; “Proximate cause”; Craig ex rel Craig v Oakwood Hosp; Ykimoff v Foote Mem’l Hosp; Martin v Ledingham; Credibility; Effect of incomplete discovery; Stringwell v Ann Arbor Pub Sch Dist; Intervening cause; Taylor v Wyeth Labs, Inc; Meek v Department of Transp; Affidavit of merit (AOM); Standard of care (SOC)

Concluding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to proximate cause, the court found that the trial court erred in granting defendants-Dr. Lawrence, Greater Michigan Orthopedics, and Greater Flint Sports Medicine Center summary disposition in this medical malpractice case. The case arose from plaintiff-Bonnie Jones’s total hip replacement. The evidence supported that “hip dislocation, like the one suffered by Bonnie, is a known and accepted complication of hip replacement surgery. However, in a postoperative note, Dr. Lawrence described the femoral stem used in the first surgery as ‘suboptimal.’ [He] also noted there was ‘an increased risk of dislocation which could cause the cup to spin out [and] the hip to dislocate and [require a] second surgery.’” The court noted that he “agreed the use of the size-seven, standard femoral implant could have been a factor in the hip dislocation, which occurred one day after the first surgery. Dr. Lawrence opined ‘the main reason’ for the dislocation occurring was ‘the [unsafe] position’ Bonnie ‘was put in at the time of the fall or the fall itself.’” There was testimony that physical therapists “failed to follow protocol. Nonetheless, as noted by plaintiffs on appeal, ‘[p]roximate causation in a malpractice claim is treated no differently than in an ordinary negligence claim, and it is well-established that there can be more than one proximate cause contributing to an injury.’” And the trial court “was not permitted to grant summary disposition based on a determination that Dr. Lawrence’s account of what happened was credible.” As to defendants’ argument that “plaintiffs failed to present ‘sufficient expert testimony which establishes proximate causation,’ discovery had not yet closed” when the summary disposition motion was filed and oral arguments on it were heard. Further, additional “discovery stood a reasonable chance of uncovering factual support for plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Lawrence.” An AOM cited in and attached to their response to the summary disposition motion was before the trial court and “supported Dr. Lawrence breached the [SOC] in several ways and his actions, or inactions, directly and proximately caused Bonnie’s injuries.” The court added that “any allegedly negligent medical care on the part of the [physical therapists] would not necessarily absolve Dr. Lawrence of liability.” Reversed and remanded.