Opinion ID: 839447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the bryant requirements for medical malpractice

Text: In Bryant, this Court held that, to be subject to the requirements for asserting medical malpractice, a claim must allege an action that (1) occurred within the a professional relationship and (2) poses questions of medical judgment outside the realm of common knowledge and experience. [17] A professional relationship exists if a person or an entity capable of committing medical malpractice was subject to a contractual duty to render professional health-care services to the plaintiff. [18] Under the common law, only physicians and surgeons were potentially liable for medical malpractice. But in MCL 600.5838a(1), the Legislature expanded the scope of those who could be liable for medical malpractice. [19] It provided for medical malpractice claims to be brought against a person or entity who is or who holds himself or herself out to be a licensed health care professional, licensed health facility or agency, or an employee or agent of a licensed health facility or agency. . . .  [20] The primary issue in this case is whether the pharmacy technician and the pharmacy are covered by MCL 600.5838a(1). We conclude that they are not. Because the professional relationship test is not satisfied, we need not consider whether the complaint poses questions of medical judgment that would require expert testimony. [21]