Legal Opinion
Woodard v. Custer
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 12, 2005No. Docket 124994, 124995PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarkman, J.
The question presented to this Court is whether expert testimony is necessary in the circumstances of this case. We conclude that it is.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs’ fifteen-day-old son was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at the University of Michigan Hospital, where he was treated for a respiratory problem. During his' stay in the PICU, he was under the care of Dr. Joseph R. Custer, the Director of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. When the infant was moved to the general hospital ward, physicians in that ward discovered that both of the infant’s legs were…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jones v. PorrettaMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
- Locke v. PachtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Grossman v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Tate v. Detroit Receiving HospitalMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
- Korn v. SOUTHFIELD CITY CLERKMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
3Cited by44 opinions
- Morejon v. Rais Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical CtrMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- John Pugno v. Blue Harvest Farms LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2018
- Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2017
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.