Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
February 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
134084 & (59) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
CATHERINE RUTH REEVES and Robert P. Young, Jr.
ANTHONY LYNN REEVES, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v SC: 134084
COA: 266469
Ingham CC: 03-001557-NH
CARSON CITY HOSPITAL and LYNN
SQUANDA, D.O.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is
GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2007 judgment of the
Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
This case returns to this Court after the Court of Appeals reconsidered it in light of
Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545 (2006). In this medical malpractice case, defendants
argue that plaintiffs’ expert is not qualified under MCL 600.2169 to testify against
defendant Lynn Squanda, D.O. Squanda is board-certified in family medicine but she
treated plaintiff Catherine Reeves in the emergency room for a presumed ectopic
pregnancy. Plaintiffs’ expert is board-certified in emergency medicine but not in family
medicine.
The trial court, relying on Halloran v Bhan, 470 Mich 572 (2004), struck
plaintiffs’ expert because he was not qualified as a board-certified expert in family
medicine. Halloran required that the proposed expert witness share the same specialty
and board certification as the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony was
offered. Id at 579. After striking plaintiffs’ expert witness, the trial court granted
defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis
of Halloran. Reeves v Carson City Hosp, unpublished opinion per curium of the Court of
Appeals, issued April 6, 2006 (Docket No. 266469). In lieu of granting leave to appeal,
2
this Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case for
reconsideration in light of Woodard, which we decided after the Court of Appeals had
issued its opinion in this case. Woodard addressed an issue not reached in Halloran–
whether board certificates that are not relevant to the alleged malpractice must match. In
Halloran, the parties did not dispute that the relevant specialty was internal medicine.
Because plaintiff’s expert was not board-certified in internal medicine, he was not
qualified to testify under MCL 600.2169. Woodard, however, later held that a plaintiff’s
expert must match only the one most relevant specialty of the defendant physician.1 On
remand, the Court of Appeals ruled that the relevant specialty was emergency medicine,
the specialty that defendant Squanda was practicing at the time of the alleged
malpractice. Although plaintiffs’ expert did not match defendant Squanda’s board
certification in family medicine, that specialty was irrelevant. Therefore, it was sufficient
under Woodard that plaintiffs’ expert was board-certified in emergency medicine.2
Reeves v Carson City Hosp (On Remand), 274 Mich App 622 (2007).
In my view, the Court of Appeals has complied with Woodard’s direction to
identify the one most relevant specialty. I concur in the denial of leave to appeal because
the Court of Appeals result is consistent with the Woodard decision. Defendant Squanda
was practicing emergency medicine and could become board-certified in it, so under
Woodard she was practicing the relevant specialty of emergency medicine.
Although I concur in the denial of leave to appeal, I note that other potential
avenues remain available for testing an expert witness’s qualifications for testifying. The
Court unanimously agreed in Woodard that “even when a proffered expert meets the
criteria contained in § 2169(1), the expert is subject to further scrutiny under
§ 2169(2)and (3), [MCL 600.2955], and MRE 702.” A majority specifically agreed that
the trial court may require that other relevant specialties match. Id at 580, 582
(Markman, J., concurring); id.at 591 (Opinion of Taylor, C.J.).
1
Woodard, supra at 559, explained:
That is, § 2969(1) addresses the necessary qualifications of an expert
witness to testify regarding the “appropriate standard of practice or care,”
not regarding an inappropriate or irrelevant standard of medical practice or
care. Because an expert witness is not required to testify regarding an
inappropriate or irrelevant standard of medical practice or care, § 2169(1)
should not be understood to require such witness to specialize in specialties
and possess board certificates that are not relevant to the standard of
medical practice or care about which the witness is to testify.
2
Because the Court of Appeals had no record regarding the remaining statutory
requirements, it remanded the case for further consideration.
3
Here, plaintiffs’ expert may well match the “one most relevant specialty” of
emergency medicine. Nonetheless, on the basis of Woodard, an argument may be
advanced that an expert lacks expertise in the additional relevant specialty of family
medicine. Defendants here, for example, may argue that the practice of family medicine
was so integral to the care defendant Squanda provided that plaintiffs’ expert must
specialize in emergency medicine and be board-certified in family medicine. Because
Woodard was decided after defendants filed their motion to strike, the record contains no
argument under § 2169(2), § 2955, or MRE 702. Therefore, I join the order denying
leave to appeal. Nevertheless, a potentially viable argument is available, even after
Woodard.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 1, 2008 _________________________________________
d0129 Clerk