Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

October 30, 2009 

138712 

DAVID F. SIKKEMA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138712 

 COA: 288758 

Kent CC: 08-004608-NO 

METRO HEALTH HOSPITAL, 

Defendant, 

and 

JOHN S. BRADLEY, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (dissenting). 

 I would grant defendant’s application for leave to appeal because I conclude that 

plaintiff’s notice of intent to file a claim, required by MCL 600.2912b, was insufficient. 

The notice establishes that plaintiff’s left leg was amputated, although it does not state 

when the leg was amputated. Plaintiff sued two emergency room (ER) doctors and the 

hospital where the ER was located, alleging that his negligent treatment at the ER in 

November 2005 caused the need for amputation. The sections of the notice describing 

the facts and the standards of care applicable to defendants, required by MCL 

600.2912b(4)(a) through(d), suggest that the doctors should have diagnosed and treated 

for compartment syndrome instead of for blood clots and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). 

The statement of proximate cause, required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(e), states: 

 Drs. Hartgerink and Bradley’s failure to timely diagnose and treat 

[plaintiff’s] Compartment Syndrome and to comply with the standard of 

care as set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 was the proximate cause of his 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 30, 2009 

d1027 

 

2

development of severe Compartment Syndrome and his eventual loss of 

limb. Drs. Hartgerink and Bradley’s failure to timely diagnose and treat 

[the plaintiff’s] Compartment Syndrome deprived [plaintiff] of the 

opportunity for a better treatment result. That loss of opportunity was 

greater than 50 percent. 

The notice fails to explain several crucial elements. First and foremost, it fails to address 

whether and how compartment syndrome, as opposed to plaintiff’s ongoing history of 

blood clots and DVT, caused the need for amputation. Next, it never discusses whether 

or how his presenting symptoms in the ER were inconsistent with his history of blood 

clots and DVT, and thus why a prudent doctor would necessarily test for compartment 

syndrome. Indeed, although the notice’s section on breach alleges that defendants should 

have consulted other specialists, the notice’s fact section specifically admits that 

defendants did consult with those specialists; the specialists refused to evaluate because 

even they did not suspect compartment syndrome. Most significantly, as noted, the 

notice never even mentions the date of the eventual diagnosis and amputation, thus 

leaving the reader with no information concerning the intervening time frame and events 

between plaintiff’s visit to the ER and the unknown date on which compartment 

syndrome was ultimately suspected and diagnosed. Accordingly, at a minimum, the 

notice did not apprise defendants of how their failure to initially diagnose and treat 

compartment syndrome caused an otherwise avoidable need for amputation. Thus, the 

notice was statutorily insufficient because it utterly failed to describe the “manner in 

which it is alleged the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause 

of the injury claimed in the notice.” MCL 600.2912b(4)(e). 

 YOUNG, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.