In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice case involving a ruptured breast implant, holding that the plaintiff presented enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the critical issue of causation. The case is an important reminder that when questions remain about how an injury occurred – and no clear alternative explanation is offered – those questions must be resolved by a jury.
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that Dr. Shulak negligently performed a breast biopsy on Mrs. Jaki, damaging her breast implant. As a result, she was forced to undergo two additional surgeries to remove and replace the implant, which also caused her ongoing pain. The trial court dismissed the case, concluding there was insufficient evidence that the doctor’s actions caused the injury.
But the Court of Appeals saw it differently. It found that the plaintiffs’ expert provided a sound, fact-based opinion that Dr. Shulak’s improper use of a Mammotome biopsy needle likely weakened the wall of the implant. Although the ultrasound images from the procedure didn’t conclusively show the needle penetrating the implant, the court ruled that this absence of visual proof did not disprove the claim, especially since the defendants failed to preserve the full ultrasound imaging record.
Critically, the defendants offered no plausible alternative explanation for the rupture. Their only suggestion was that the implant may have failed due to age or during a post-biopsy mammogram, but they provided no compelling evidence to support that theory.
The appellate court also rejected the trial court’s finding that there wasn’t sufficient expert testimony linking the doctor’s alleged negligence to the plaintiff’s ongoing pain. The plaintiff was allowed to testify about her own experience of pain, and the expert supported that this pain could have resulted from the compromised implant integrity caused during the biopsy.
This case illustrates how important it is for courts to consider the totality of the evidence – including the patient’s experience and the absence of a documented alternative cause – before taking the decision away from a jury.
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we fight to ensure that our clients have their voices heard and their day in court. If you’ve experienced harm due to negligent medical procedures, contact our experienced medical malpractice team to explore your legal rights.