Medical malpractice expert musrt support all claims

The court held, inter alia, that the trial court erred by denying the defendants' motion for partial summary disposition as to the plaintiff's allegations of malpractice occurring before 10/11/05, the 23 broadly-stated allegations of malpractice in her complaint that lacked expert support, and her allegations related to a lack of informed consent for the fat injection procedure. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to her claims concerning the exteriorization of the Becker port and failure to more quickly remove the Becker implant, and the trial court properly denied defendants' motion as to those claims. Plaintiff's claim that defendant-Smith improperly placed the implant at the time of the 7/06 surgery also remained a matter for jury determination. Plaintiff began treating with Smith, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, on 5/26/04. According to the complaint, Smith diagnosed her with mammary hypoplasia and recommended bilateral augmentation mammoplasty. He did the surgery on 7/26/04. At the follow-up visit, he noted that there was a displacement of the right infra-mammary crease and applied Elastoplast tape to the area. Plaintiff underwent a second surgery on 3/4/05. Smith repositioned the right implant and increased the volume bilaterally. Then, "additional complications arose including the appearance of the right implant being higher than the left implant and the development of some abnormality, described variously in the records." An abscess also developed. On 4/12/05, Smith performed an incision and debridement in his office and prescribed an antibiotic for an infection in the breast. Because the infection persisted, Smith conducted surgery on 5/9/05, removing the right implant. After several follow-up visits and various "post-operative difficulties" plaintiff underwent another surgery. Smith placed a Becker implant in the right breast on 9/16/05. After the surgery, plaintiff again "developed complications including what appeared to be a discoloration on an area of the breast, erythema, and infection." On 9/22/05, she was admitted to the hospital for treatment with IV antibiotics. Smith tried to treat the infection "by opening an incision site near or about the Becker port, and by attempting to aspirate through the body of the breast." The parties agreed that on 10/11/05, Smith exteriorized the Becker port to allow for drainage. On 11/28/05, he conducted surgery to remove the right implant. Plaintiff recovered well after the removal and they agreed to wait several months before placing another implant. On 5/19/06, Smith decided it would be better to do a "fat injection," rather than install a new implant. Plaintiff signed a consent form authorizing Smith to inject fat into the right breast. She underwent another surgery of 7/14/06, where Smith placed a new implant in her right breast. Her last visit to Smith was on 7/18/06. Photographs after the final surgery showed significant "migration" of the right implant. Later, plaintiff saw another plastic surgeon. On 3/18/09, she was seen by Dr. I, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. He performed corrective surgery on 4/14/09. According to plaintiff's expert, W, the surgery was "partially successful," meaning the appearance of the breast was improved and plaintiff was happier. But there was still a depression and some unevenness. Dr. W suggested further corrections for the appearance of the breast. She sued defendants on 9/18/07 alleging medical negligence. The court noted that plaintiff did not provide expert testimony for her allegations of malpractice pre-10/11/05 and some of her other claims lacked expert support, and held, inter alia, that the trial court should have granted defendants' motion as to those claims. Thus, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.