Case Title: Garabedian v. William Beaumont Hosp.

Citation: 547 N.W.2d 654

Docket Number: 102571, 159869

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
547 N.W.2d 654 (1996)
Sarah GARABEDIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 102571, COA No. 159869.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
January 19, 1996.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that *655 the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
LEVIN, J., states as follows:
I would grant leave to appeal.
Sarah Garabedian, eighty-seven at the time of her injury, visited the emergency room at William Beaumont Hospital because of a severe headache and sudden blindness. Her daughter, Ms. Agnes Nassar, accompanied her. Nassar said that Garabedian was disoriented in the emergency room after having been given Demerol for pain and two diuretics for high blood pressure. Nassar informed the nursing staff that her mother was "out of it" and asked to stay with her mother. Her request was denied, and she was permitted to see her mother for five minutes an hour.
Garabedian fell out of bed and fractured her hip. Garabedian has no recollection of the circumstances of her injury.
The Court of Appeals[1] set forth the following additional facts:
The Court of Appeals in affirming a directed verdict for the defendant, said:
Because plaintiff does not recall how she fell from the bed, and because there were no witnesses to the fall, plaintiff must rely on circumstantial evidence to establish the causal link between defendant's alleged negligence and the harm suffered. Skinner v. Square D Co, 445 Mich. 153, 163; 516 NW2d 475 (1994). "To be adequate, a plaintiff's circumstantial proof must facilitate reasonable inferences of causation, not mere speculation." Id. at 164 [516 N.W.2d 475]. According to LaMarre's testimony, if plaintiff had been adequately evaluated, the evaluation might have revealed a need for intervention, and that intervention might have prevented plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff's attenuated theory of causation does not establish a reasonable basis for concluding that it is more likely than not that conduct by defendant's employees was the cause of plaintiff's injury. Id. at 165 [516 N.W.2d 475]. "A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant." Id. We cannot conclude that plaintiff's injury is attributable to defendant's alleged failure to evaluate and chart plaintiff's condition. Boyd v. Wyandotte, 402 Mich 98, 105; 260 NW2d 439 (1977). *656 [208 Mich App 473, 475-476, 528 N.W.2d 809 (1995).]
I find the following analysis of the dissenting Court of Appeals judge to be more persuasive:
The majority's reliance on Boyd v. City of Wyandotte, 402 Mich 98; 260 NW2d 439 (1977), is mistaken. The Boyd Court held that, under the circumstances of that case, a physician's failure to maintain adequate records of a patient's treatment was not a proper theory of recovery under negligence principles. Id. at 104-105 [260 N.W.2d 439]. Here, plaintiff's theory is that defendant's employees were negligent in failing to assess and monitor her condition consistent with the appropriate standard of care and that, had they done so, it was more than likely that her injury would not have occurred. The majority is therefore mistaken when it relies on Boyd as support for the proposition that plaintiff's injury in this case was not "attributable to defendant's alleged failure to evaluate and chart plaintiff's condition." Ante, p 476 [528 N.W.2d 809].
CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
[1]  208 Mich.App. 473, 528 N.W.2d 809 (1995).
[2]  Id. at 474, 528 N.W.2d 809. LaMarre also testified that most of the observation was done by a licensed practical nurse, although guidelines (American Nurses Association, and the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals) called for a registered nurse's attention. If a licensed practical nurse makes the observations, the nurse is to report to a registered nurse, who will make an assessment. Assessments were not made here by a registered nurse.

The registered nurse is then supposed to make goals, on the basis of the observations, and plan interventions. This was not done, either. If it had been done, the nurses might have seen that Garabedian was agitated and perhaps not fully aware of her surroundings, and that measures needed to be taken to ease her agitationsoft restraints, medication, the presence of a family member, or increased nursing supervision. Any of those might have prevented the injury.