MARY WINGLE V CAROL SLOMSKI MD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARY WINGLE and RICHARD WINGLE,
UNPUBLISHED
January 17, 1997
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 182129
Ingham County
LC No. 93-074524-NI
CAROL SLOMSKI, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DONALD C. SIMON, M.D. and RADIOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Defendants.
Before: White, P.J., and Griffin, and D.C. Kolenda,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant, alleging negligence in the
detection and treatment of breast cancer due to the improper interpretation of a mammogram. The trial
court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), reasoning
that plaintiffs failed to present an expert witness qualified to establish the relevant standard of care.
Plaintiffs now appeal as of right. We affirm.
Based on the expert’s deposition testimony, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that Dr. Wehunt, a radiologist, was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care
applicable to defendant, a surgeon specializing in oncology. MRE 702. Because plaintiffs failed to
present admissible evidence of the applicable standard of care, Wischmeyer v Schamz, 449 Mich 469,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
484; 536 NW2d 760 (1995), summary disposition in favor of defendant was appropriate. MCR
2.116(C)(10); Wischmeyer, supra; Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 161; 516 NW2d 475
(1994). Our conclusion makes it unnecessary to address the court’s statement that defendant relied on
the interpretation of the radiologist.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Dennis C. Kolenda
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
