Robins v. Garg
Court of Appeals of Michigan
741 N.W.2d 49 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Ilene Robins (plaintiff) began seeing general practitioner Dr. Tilak Garg (defendant) in 1986. Based on a number of factors, Garg noted that Robins was at risk for heart disease. Robins underwent several tests, including blood work to determine her cholesterol level. The following year, Robins was diagnosed with asthma, but Garg did not order further testing. For several years thereafter, Robins had a pattern of hurriedly asking for prescription refills and then leaving Garg’s office. Twelve years after her initial cholesterol test, another one revealed that Robins’ level was very high. Garg prescribed various cholesterol-lowering drugs, but Robins refused to take the medications. Garg also referred her to see a cardiologist, but it was not documented in her file. From that point on, Garg did not order any additional testing for Robins’s heart and cholesterol problems when she saw him at appointments for other medical conditions. In 2001, Robins went to Garg’s clinic complaining of chest and back pain. An ambulance was called, but prior to its arrival, Robins went into severe cardiac arrest and died. Robins’ representative sued Garg for malpractice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Garg after striking a deposition of Robins’ expert witness due to qualification issues. This decision was reversed on appeal and remanded for consideration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Borrello, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.