LAUREL D STOUGHTON V BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LAUREL D. STOUGHTON and GREG L.
STOUGHTON,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 2003
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER, doing business
as PIPP MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 242781
Allegan Circuit Court
LC No. 02-031019-NM
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), on grounds that the statute of limitations applicable to
plaintiffs’ claim had expired. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Following surgery, plaintiff Laurel Stoughton was allegedly advised that hospital
personnel had failed to properly sterilize the surgical instruments and that as a result she might
have been infected with the AIDS virus or hepatitis. She underwent periodic testing and has so
far tested negative.
The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint because it was not filed within the twoyear period of limitations applicable to medical malpractice claims. See MCL 600.5805(6).
Plaintiffs claim that this was error with respect to Count I, entitled general negligence, in which
plaintiffs alleged that defendant “[n]egligently performed the sterilization of surgical
instruments.” Plaintiffs aver that this was ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice.
In Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital, 460 Mich 26, 45-46; 594 NW2d 455 (1999),
the Court held:
“The key to a medical malpractice claim is whether it is alleged that the
negligence occurred within the course of a professional relationship. . . .
[Bronson v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, 175 Mich App 647, 652-653; 438
NW2d 276 (1989).]
-1-
The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof
and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an
ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that
are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively,
raise questions involving medical judgment. [Citations omitted.]
Few would disagree that ordinary laypersons would be capable of concluding that
instruments should be properly sterilized before surgery. However, whether instruments were
properly sterilized or negligently sterilized is a different question. The hospital defendant in this
case was responsible for the sterilization of instruments and/or for checking to ensure proper
sterilization. This service would be part of the professional relationship between the hospital and
the patient. Moreover, the manner of sterilization and the determination of when sterilization is
compromised, or sufficiently compromised to raise a medical concern, would be questions that
someone other than a layperson would have to answer. Since there is at least some degree of
medical judgment involved in this determination, we conclude that the trial court properly
granted summary disposition.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.