Background
Corey Smith sought treatment from podiatrist Ryan Murphy for severe pain and pes planus in his right foot. After conservative treatment with orthotics and taping failed, Murphy performed a triple arthrodesis to fuse bones in Smith’s subtalar joint. Smith initially improved but later continued to experience pain. Another physician determined that the joint had only partially fused and removed the surgical hardware.
Smith sued Murphy, Murphy’s practice, and the hospital, alleging that the surgery was premature and negligently performed. Smith’s expert, Dr. Steven Boc, testified that Murphy improperly positioned the screws and failed to achieve adequate compression, causing nonunion and pain. During his testimony, however, Boc initially relied on an image of Smith’s left foot rather than his right, had not reviewed certain relevant CT reports, and had never examined Smith. Murphy and defense expert Dr. Michelle Marie Gillette testified that the surgery complied with the standard of care and was successful. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, and the trial court denied Smith’s motion for a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the jury’s verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. Although Smith argued that Boc’s testimony about screw placement was unrebutted, Murphy and Gillette testified that the operation complied with the standard of care, the postoperative images showed improved alignment and healing, and two screws prevented movement even if the union was partial.
The court also concluded that the jury could reasonably question Boc’s credibility because he initially reviewed the wrong foot, blamed Murphy for possibly mislabeling the images, did not review certain medical records, and never examined Smith. Evidence also supported alternative explanations for Smith’s pain, including pain arising from other joints. Because competent evidence logically supported the defense verdict, neither the trial court nor the appellate court could substitute its judgment for the jury’s assessment of the competing experts.
Key Takeaways
- A medical-malpractice verdict is not against the great weight of the evidence merely because the parties’ experts reached conflicting conclusions.
- Credibility problems in an expert’s testimony—including reviewing the wrong medical image and omitting relevant records—may support the jury’s decision to reject that expert’s opinion.
- A new trial is unwarranted when competent evidence and a logical interpretation of the record support the jury’s verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the substantial deference Michigan courts give to juries when medical-malpractice cases turn on competing expert testimony. An appellate court will not reweigh credibility or overturn a defense verdict when the record contains competent evidence supporting the jury’s conclusions.
For trial counsel, the opinion also illustrates how errors in reviewing medical images and gaps in an expert’s record review can materially undermine the expert’s credibility, even when the expert maintains the same ultimate opinion after the error is identified.