A plaintiff who claimed the care she was provided resulted in injuries to her newborn will get a second chance to file a first amended complaint in her medical malpractice action against a hospital and several doctors and medical personnel, according to a ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff said additional evidence came to light during discovery, but the trial court denied her motion to amend her complaint.
The appellate judges said that was the wrong call, and reversed the trial court's decision.
“In this case, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint because it believed that granting such a motion ‘would prejudice the defense,” the judges noted. “However, the trial court did not specify how plaintiff’s amendment to her complaint would prejudice the defense.”
The decision,
GT v. Spectrum Health Butterworth Hosp. (
MiLW 08-107952, 5 pages ), was issued by Judges Brock A. Swartzle, Deborah A. Servitto and Kristina Robinson Garrett.
Southfield attorney Robert P. Roth represented the plaintiffs, while Jonathan Koch of Smith Haughey Rice Roegge in Grand Rapids represented the defendants. Neither could be reached for comment.
Background
When Ana Tomson was 33 weeks pregnant with GT, she called her obstetrician’s office to report that she felt less fetal movement than the previous day. She was told to go to the office for an evaluation on Dec. 15, 2014.
Defendant Dr. Ruth Brandt ordered a nonstress test for Tomson, which was done between 2 - 3 p.m. Brandt then ordered a biophysical profile, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Due to the inexperience of the ultrasound technician, the first test was unsuccessful. A second test gave a 2 out of 10 result, with scores of 0 for fetal movement, breathing and heart tone. The test results were reported to Brandt at 8:30 p.m.
At 8:53 p.m., Tomson was sent to Spectrum’s Labor and Delivery Unit. However, documentation showed that Tomson was not assessed by an obstetrician until 11:28 p.m. Brandt and Dr. Brooke Bollin-Richards called for a C-section within minutes. The procedure was done at 12:23 a.m. on Dec. 16.
GT was severely and acutely anemic at birth, and was a patient in the neonatal intensive care unit immediately following birth until Feb. 13, 2015. Per the opinion, GT’s diagnoses included diffuse ischemic insult encephalomalacia, anemia secondary to acute fetal maternal hemorrhage and acute kidney injury, among others.
Tomson’s complaint alleged that GT suffers from multiple neurological deficits and is entirely dependent on others for his care, which would remain the case for the rest of his life. Tomson’s original complaint was filed in October 2020, and alleged corporate negligence against Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital, vicarious liability against Grand Rapids Women’s Health, and medical malpractice against several doctors and medical personnel.
As discovery progressed, however, Tomson moved for leave to file a first amended complaint. Additional evidence was revealed that required amending the complaint to include additional claims of liability, including ordinary negligence claims against Spectrum and a new defendant, John/Jane Doe Ultrasound Technician.
The defendants opposed this motion. Tomson, they noted, failed to set forth what further evidence was revealed during discovery that necessitated filing an amended complaint. They also contended that Tomson’s proposed additional claim against John/Jane Doe sounded in medical malpractice, which required filing an amended notice of intent. Finally, the defendants said Tomson’s additional theories of liability would not allow enough time to complete the required discovery.
The Kent County Court denied Tomson’s motion, stating “I think it would prejudice the defense.” The court simply mentioned that discovery would be closing in two months, and offered no specifics of how granting Tomson’s motion would prejudice the defendants.
The trial court denied Tomson’s motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.
Reversed and remanded
Tomson argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and her motion for reconsideration.
The appellate judges agreed.
The lower court believed that it would prejudice the defense by granting the motion, but failed to explain how it would do so.
“This is problematic because defendants argued that prejudice would exist for three separate reasons: (1) plaintiff’s additional claim against John/Jane Doe was improperly labeled as an ordinary negligence claim when it actually sounded in medical malpractice, thereby requiring a new NOI and additional expert testimony; (2) plaintiff’s additional theories of liability would not allow sufficient time to complete required discovery; and (3) plaintiff was in possession of her medical records before initiating the lawsuit, meaning she had the opportunity to uncover the claim against John/Jane Doe and should have included the claim in her original complaint,” the panel wrote. “All three reasons proposed by defendants required further explanation by the court rather than a blanket statement that prejudice would occur if amendment of plaintiff’s pleadings was allowed.”
The judges noted that the trial court made no finding whether Tomson’s new claim against John/Jane Doe sounded in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence.
As for the defendant’s second argument, the panel pointed out that no trial date had been set and the lower court extended discovery by an additional 90 days to ensure that Tomson obtained all requested discovery from the defendants.
“The trial court made no statement concerning the effect of the extension of discovery on a finding of prejudice,” the judges explained. “Where the trial court failed to thoroughly articulate on the record its reasoning for denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, this Court is unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion and, in turn, by denying her motion for reconsideration.”
The panel sent the matter back to Kent County for further proceedings.
“On remand, the trial court should either grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint or articulate on the record the particularized reasons it is denying such motion,” the judges said.
If you would like to comment on this story, contact Cory Linsner at clinsner@milawyersweekly.com . Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0