JOHN D RENSWICK V PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTERS INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN D. RENSWICK, personal representative of
the estate of MARION RENSWICK,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 244698
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 02-038057-NH
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTERS, INC., a Michigan nonprofit
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and White and Donofrio, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part.)
The claimed malpractice was the nurse’s failure to accurately account for the sponge.
Sims was qualified to testify regarding this breach and the need for the second surgery to remove
the sponge. Whether the second surgery was properly performed is not material, as long as it
was the natural result of leaving the sponge. To the extent plaintiff’s complaint and notice allege
a breach of the standard by failing to accurately account for the sponge, and a resultant injury in
the form of adhesions, the need to perform additional surgery which included the removal of
parts of the small intestine, small bowel and large colon, and resulting pain and persistent
diarrhea, I conclude the circuit court erred in dismissing the case.1 I would reverse this aspect of
the court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
The affidavit of merit wholly fails to address the claim that the second surgery resulted in
an inability to proceed with cancer treatment, which lead to the spread of cancer and the patient’s
death. Further, Sims was not qualified to address these issues. As noted by the majority,
Geralds v Munson Healthcare, 259 Mich App 225; 673 NW2d 792 (2003), requires that the
dismissal of this aspect of plaintiff’s case be affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
1
I recognize that the case was initially dismissed for failure to file a response to the motion for
summary disposition. However, plaintiff adequately explained the failure, and the court should
have reached the merits on reconsideration.
-1-
-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.
