Case Name: Alexander FIGURSKI, Minor, BY his Conservator, Howard LINDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, d/b/a Saint Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital, William Bradfield, M.D., and Catherine McAuley Health Services Corporation, a/k/a Saint Joseph Medicine Faculty Associates, a/k/a Saint Joseph Mercy Primary Care, Defendants-Appellants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2018-04-13
Citations: 909 N.W.2d 445
Docket Number: SC: 154390; COA: 318115
Parties: Alexander FIGURSKI, Minor, BY his Conservator, Howard LINDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, d/b/a Saint Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital, William Bradfield, M.D., and Catherine McAuley Health Services Corporation, a/k/a Saint Joseph Medicine Faculty Associates, a/k/a Saint Joseph Mercy Primary Care, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 909
Pages: 445–447

Head Matter:
Alexander FIGURSKI, Minor, BY his Conservator, Howard LINDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, d/b/a Saint Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital, William Bradfield, M.D., and Catherine McAuley Health Services Corporation, a/k/a Saint Joseph Medicine Faculty Associates, a/k/a Saint Joseph Mercy Primary Care, Defendants-Appellants.
SC: 154390
COA: 318115
Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 13, 2018
Order

Opinion:
By order of May 10, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the July 28, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Walters v. Falik (Docket No. 154489). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on December 15, 2017, 501 Mich. 938, 904 N.W.2d 190 (2017), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. The motion to strike is DENIED.
Markman, C.J. (dissenting).
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against defendants. The trial court granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiff's causation experts and granted defendants' motion for partial summary disposition, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Because I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment, I respectfully dissent from this Court's order denying leave to appeal.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendants' malpractice during his mother's labor and delivery caused two injuries: a general hypoxic-ischemic injury to his entire brain and a perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS). More specifically, the complaint alleged that these injuries were caused by the compression of plaintiff's head during contractions resulting from the administration of Pitocin to his mother during labor. Plaintiff sought to admit expert testimony to prove this theory of causation.
The admissibility of expert witness testimony is governed by MRE 702, which provides:
If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Additionally, trial courts must consider the factors described in MCL 600.2955 when adjudicating medical malpractice cases:
(1) In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property, a scientific opinion rendered by an otherwise qualified expert is not admissible unless the court determines that the opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact. In making that determination, the court shall examine the opinion and the basis for the opinion, which basis includes the facts, technique, methodology, and reasoning relied on by the expert, and shall consider all of the following factors:
(a) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to scientific testing and replication.
(b) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to peer review publication.
(c) The existence and maintenance of generally accepted standards governing the application and interpretation of a methodology or technique and whether the opinion and its basis are consistent with those standards.
(d) The known or potential error rate of the opinion and its basis.
(e) The degree to which the opinion and its basis are generally accepted within the relevant expert community. As used in this subdivision, "relevant expert community" means individuals who are knowledgeable in the field of study and are gainfully employed applying that knowledge on the free market.
(f) Whether the basis for the opinion is reliable and whether experts in that field would rely on the same basis to reach the type of opinion being proffered.
(g) Whether the opinion or methodology is relied upon by experts outside of the context of litigation.
We have repeatedly stated that trial courts are gatekeepers with respect to expert testimony. Clerc v. Chippewa Co. War Mem. Hosp. , 477 Mich. 1067, 1067-1068, 729 N.W.2d 221 (2007) ; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 470 Mich. 749, 780, 685 N.W.2d 391 (2004). In accordance with this responsibility, they must ensure that expert testimony is not only relevant, but also reliable. Edry v. Adelman , 486 Mich. 634, 640, 786 N.W.2d 567 (2010), citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). This fundamental duty has remained the same regardless of the precise standard by which reliability has been judged. Gilbert , 470 Mich. at 782, 685 N.W.2d 391. Indeed, when MRE 702 was last amended to conform with its federal counterpart, the words "the court determines that" in the first sentence of MRE 702 were retained specifically to emphasize "the centrality of the court's gatekeeping role ." MRE 702, 469 Mich. cxci-cxcii (staff comment).
This Court has recognized that the gatekeeping task necessitates a " 'searching inquiry.' " Clerc , 477 Mich. at 1068, 729 N.W.2d 221, quoting Gilbert , 470 Mich. at 782, 685 N.W.2d 391. Above all, it demands that a court adequately sort the scientific from the "junky." Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 159, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring). This is despite the reality that most judges are general practitioners, not medical specialists. So while a court may not abandon its gatekeeping function, Gilbert , 470 Mich. at 780, 685 N.W.2d 391, it can do no more than rule on the strength of the record presented, see Edry , 486 Mich. at 640-642, 786 N.W.2d 567. And it is invariably for the proponents of expert testimony to demonstrate that such evidence is sufficiently reliable. Elher v. Misra , 499 Mich. 11, 22, 878 N.W.2d 790 (2016).
Recognizing that trial courts are in the best position to conduct this inquiry, we have held that the admission of expert testimony is within their reasonable discretion. See Craig v. Oakwood Hosp. , 471 Mich. 67, 76, 684 N.W.2d 296 (2004). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court's decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes or, alternatively, when an unprejudiced person considering the facts on which the trial court acted would say that there was no justification for the ruling.
Novi v. Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust , 473 Mich. 242, 254, 701 N.W.2d 144 (2005), citing People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 269, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003), and Gilbert , 470 Mich. at 762, 685 N.W.2d 391.
With these principles in mind, it is clear that the trial court here was acting within its reasonable discretion when it excluded plaintiff's experts. The court considered all of the factors described in MCL 600.2955(1) and determined that plaintiff's experts did not present sufficient evidence to support plaintiff's theory of causation. At the most, plaintiff's own evidence indicated only that pressure on the fetal head constitutes one "risk factor" for hypoxic/ischemic injury and stroke, along with a host of other "risk factors," and that, even when three or more "risk factors" are present, hypoxic/ischemic injury or stroke results in no more than 0.5% of cases. Plaintiff did not present any evidence that head compression, rather than another risk factor, caused his injuries and none of the articles cited by plaintiff's experts directly supported their conclusion that pressure on the fetal head during labor and delivery causes either brain damage and/or strokes. See Elher , 499 Mich. at 23, 878 N.W.2d 790 ("A lack of supporting literature, while not dispositive, is an important factor in determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony."). Ultimately, the trial court ruled that plaintiff's experts had not adequately demonstrated the reliability of their testimony. Considering the underlying facts, this was a principled exercise of judgment, discussed at length in a thoughtful 30-page opinion.
The Court of Appeals criticized the trial court for misunderstanding the gatekeeper role and resolving the issue of causation instead of determining whether plaintiff's experts could offer a reliable opinion. In particular, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on its prior decision in Vanslembrouck v. Halperin , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued Oct. 28, 2014 (Docket No. 309680), 2014 WL 5462596, in which similar testimony was admitted. Yet the trial court here was obliged to rule on the record of this case, not some other. And on this record, it clearly stated that plaintiff's experts failed to explain why their testimony was reliable. Indeed, the trial court noted that plaintiff's experts had argued in a conclusory way that the testimony was admissible under applicable standards, despite the court's prompting that they do so in a more robust manner. This does not mean that the experts were wrong or fabricated their theory. It simply means that they failed to adequately justify it in this proceeding. The Court of Appeals thus erred by relying so heavily on Vanslembrouck . What mattered was that the trial court reached a principled decision on the facts before it.
Because I do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding plaintiff's causation experts, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment and reinstate the trial court's order granting defendants' motion to exclude plaintiff's causation experts and granting defendants' motion for partial summary disposition.
I, Larry S. Royster, 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.
Zahra and Wilder, JJ., Join the Statement of Markman, C.J.
The defendants in Vanslembrouck sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeals decision in this Court, but the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the application before any action was taken. Vanslembrouck v. Halperin , 868 N.W.2d 914 (2015).