In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals reinforced a vital principle in medical malpractice cases: when there is credible expert testimony about what should have been done and how that failure likely caused a patient’s death, a jury — not the judge — should decide the issue.
In Estate of Harsh v. McLaren Port Huron Hospital, the personal representative of Ryan Harsh’s estate brought a malpractice claim against McLaren Port Huron Hospital and Dr. Arundhuti Banerjee. The estate alleged that Dr. Banerjee’s negligence in failing to ensure a repeat CT scan delayed Ryan’s access to critical neurological care and life-saving treatment.
The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the estate’s expert’s opinions were “mere speculation.” But the Court of Appeals disagreed — strongly.
The estate’s causation expert, Dr. V, testified that if Dr. Banerjee had made sure a repeat CT scan was done, the consulting neurologist would likely have called in a neurosurgeon. According to Dr. V, this would have led to timely interventions such as a decompressive craniectomy (a surgery to relieve dangerous brain swelling) and hyperosmolar therapy — treatments that could have saved Ryan’s life.
The Court of Appeals concluded that this opinion was not based on speculation but on a reasonable, logical sequence of cause and effect supported by medical evidence. The court emphasized that when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff — as the law requires at the summary disposition stage — a genuine question of fact existed as to whether Dr. Banerjee’s failure to order the repeat scan was a “but for” cause of Ryan’s death.
Importantly, the Court noted that the hospital had not provided evidence to counter the claim that the needed surgery could have been done in time. By contrast, the estate provided detailed expert testimony showing there was a window of several hours in which proper treatment likely would have prevented Ryan’s death.
As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and sent the case back for trial.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is another reminder that judges should not weigh the credibility of competing medical opinions on summary disposition. When qualified experts testify about what should have happened — and connect that failure to harm — Michigan juries get to decide whether the chain of events is more likely than not true.
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we stand with families like Ryan Harsh’s. We know that proving medical negligence is never simple — it requires thorough investigation, experienced experts, and a commitment to fight hospitals and providers who deny responsibility.
If you or a loved one suffered harm because of a medical provider’s failure to act, we’re here to help you seek answers and hold them accountable.
Contact us today to learn more about your rights in a medical malpractice case.