< Back to Previous Page The Supreme Court To Consider Whether The Plaintiffs Need Expert Support For Their Claims Of Medical Malpractice Court Case The Plaintiffs Ask The Supreme Plaintiffs' son Austin was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”) at the University of Michigan , where he was treated for a respiratory problem. When he left the PICU, doctors discovered fractures in his femurs. The Woodards sued Dr. Joseph Custer and the hospital, alleging that the fractures were the result of negligent medical procedures (for example, improper placement of arterial and venous lines). The trial judge held that the Woodards' expert witness was not qualified to testify against Dr. Custer; accordingly, the judge granted the defendants' motion to strike the Woodards' expert witness. The court also rejected the Woodards' argument that negligence could be inferred from the fact that Austin was admitted to the PICU with healthy legs and left with fractured legs. Without expert testimony, the Woodards could not take their case to a jury, the court said in dismissing their lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to testify against Dr. Custer. But the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit, holding that the Woodards did not need expert testimony because the negligence would be apparent to a layperson. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal. The defendants ask the Supreme Court to consider whether the plaintiffs need expert support for their claims of medical malpractice. The plaintiffs ask the Supreme Court to consider whether the trial court properly ruled that their expert was not qualified to testify against Dr. Custer

Find a Lawyer