Court Opinion

ID: 9575503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:23.378239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:16.584665
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the statement and therefore the holding of the majority at pages 458-459, of the slip opinion which states:
"Because we conclude that the determination of whether to use a restraining belt, in the present case, involves a matter of routine care within a jury’s common knowledge, we hold that expert testimony was not necessary to establish the standard of care applicable to the nursing home.”
The present case involves the claim of the estate of the deceased, Angela Cieler. She had a ventral hernia which extended from the base of her sternum to just above her pubis which puffed out from her stomach like a balloon.
The majority summarizes the testimony of Dr. William Brodhead, the orthopedic surgeon, as follows:
"[Although a safety belt could be used without coming into contact with Cieler’s ventral hernia, normal placement of a safety belt would overlap the hernia. However, it was Dr. Brodhead’s opinion that there would be no problem with a belt which touched the hernia because it appeared that the hernia did not bother Cieler. On cross-examination Dr. Brodhead testified that, if the patient said that the hernia was painful, then it would be inadvisable to use a safety belt.” (Majority opinion at pages 461-462.)
*471By the very nature of his equivocating testimony, it is only logical and reasonable to find that the issue of the use of a restraining belt did not involve a matter of routine care within a jury’s common knowledge.
I agree with the trial court and the court of appeals that Arbor View’s motion to dismiss was properly granted because no expert testimony was presented to establish the standard of care owed by Arbor View to Cieler on the issue of the use of a safety belt to restrain her in the wheelchair. This is not nonmedical, administrative, ministerial or routine care as found by the majority at page 8 of the slip opinion. The hernia this woman had required medical determinations as to any intrusion regarding it. A medical decision was necessary as to the propriety and effectiveness of a safety belt due to her condition, as well as the type of belt, the amount of pressure she could withstand and the location for placement of the belt due to her hernia. Placement of an undefined belt by a nonmedical person in attendance, such as in this case, a woman who was a volunteer, if misdirected as to the hernia would be a cause for a claim of negligent care and treatment. Medical decisions were required in handling her condition and therefore expert testimony of the plaintiffs was necessary to establish the standard of care required regarding the use or absence of a safety belt. Such circumstances are not within the realm of the ordinary experience of mankind, are not matters of common knowledge, and, therefore, a special skill or experience on the subject is necessary which requires expert testimony.
The majority opinion does not require the plaintiffs to offer expert testimony on the matter of the use of a safety belt in spite of this woman’s massive hernia; however, as I understand it, the testimony of *472an expert witness called by the defendants on the subject is not ruled out.
I dissent and would affirm the court of appeals.