Case Name: MILLER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1988-04-25
Citations: 168 Mich. App. 238
Docket Number: Docket No. 87700
Parties: MILLER v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: Beasley, P.J., and R. M. Maher and M. E. Dodge, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 168
Pages: 238–246

Head Matter:
MILLER v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 87700.
Submitted June 2, 1987, at Grand Rapids.
Decided April 25, 1988.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Todd A. Miller was injured in an accident involving an automobile owned by Balder, Balder & Koeman Grain Company and driven by Arlyn Jay Schreur, an employee of Balder. Miller brought an action in Allegan Circuit Court against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Schreur and Balder. At the beginning of a trial by jury, defendants made a motion in limine to exclude evidence of thermographic tests done on plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had not established a foundation that such tests had achieved general scientific acceptance and recognition within the medical community as a reliable diagnostic tool. The trial court, Hudson E. Deming, J., took the motion under advisement, but later admitted the deposition testimony of Donald L. Newman, M.D., regarding thermography. The court also admitted into evidence the results of a thermographic examination of plaintiff conducted by Dr. Newman. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding him $54,000. Defendants Schreur and Balder appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. Testimony by expert witnesses regarding a novel form of scientific evidence may be admitted so long as it is established that the evidence has achieved general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in its field. In this case, the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the reliability of thermographic evidence.
2. On remand, the trial court is to conduct a hearing to determine whether thermography is accepted as reliable by the scientific community. The number of expert witnesses each side may call shall rest in the sound discretion of the trial court except that Dr. Newman may not testify as an expert, on account of his bias, and other testimony shall be limited to that of experts who are disinterested and impartial and whose livelihood is not intimately connected with thermography.
References
Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 829; Expert and Opinion Evidence § 103 et seq.
Thermographic tests: admissability of test results in personal injury suits. 56 ALR4th 1105.
3. If the trial court determines that thermography is accepted as reliable by the scientific community, the verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed. If the trial court finds that it is not, the verdict is reversed and a hearing shall be conducted on whether plaintiff has otherwise satisfied the requirements of DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32 (1986).
Remanded.
Beasley, P.J., dissented and would hold that thermography, as presently developed in the medical field, is a useless and unreliable technique and that, barring new developments, the results of thermographic medical examinations should not be admitted into evidence. Judge Beasley would reverse and remand for a hearing to determine whether plaintiff met his burden of proof under DiFranco.
1. Evidence — Expert Witnesses — Scientific Evidence.
Testimony by expert witnesses regarding a novel form of scientific evidence may be admitted so long as it is established that the evidence has achieved general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in its field.
2. Evidence — Scientific Evidence — Expert Witnesses.
General scientific recognition of a new technique may not be established without the testimony of disinterested and impartial experts whose livelihood is not intimately connected with the new technique.
John A. Watts, P.C. (by John A. Watts), for plaintiff.
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn (by Frederick M. Baker, Jr.), for Arlyn Jay Schreur and Balder, Balder & Koeman Grain Company.
Before: Beasley, P.J., and R. M. Maher and M. E. Dodge, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
R. M. Maher, J.
We agree with the facts and disqualification of plaintiff's expert witness as ex plained in Judge Beasley's well-reasoned opinion, which was originally circulated as a proposed majority opinion, but must disagree as to that portion of his final paragraph where he finds "thermography, as presently developed in the medical field, to be a useless and unreliable technique." We believe that, under the present record, that conclusion is premature and one which should be reserved until after the competing views are fully set forth in a Davis-Frye -type hearing.
As Judge Beasley recognizes, the trial court erred in failing to address defendants' motion in limine by conducting a hearing on the reliability of thermographic evidence. We do not believe, though, that plaintiff should be penalized by the trial court's mistake or by our ruling on appeal that Dr. Newman should have been disqualified from giving expert testimony. Had the court conducted a Davis-Frye hearing, and had plaintiff known that his witness was unable to testify on the scientific acceptance of thermography, he may have been able to present expert testimony from a competent witness. Plaintiff should not be made to suffer for his lack of foreknowledge.
For the above reasons, we believe the case should be remanded for a Davis-Frye-type hearing. The number of expert witnesses each side may call shall rest in the sound discretion of the trial court and shall be limited according to the dictates of the case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall decide, based upon the facts before it, whether thermography is accepted as reliable by the scientific community. If the court finds that it is, the verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed. If the court finds that it is not, the verdict is reversed and a hearing shall be conducted on whether plaintiff has otherwise satisfied the requirements of DiFranco v Pickard.
Remanded for a Davis-Frye-type hearing.
M. E. Dodge, J., concurred.
Frye v United States, 54 US App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923); People v Davis, 343 Mich 348; 72 NW2d 269 (1955).
On remand, the trial judge is cautioned to find plaintiff's expert witnesses competent to testify only if those persons satisfy the requirements of Kluck v Borland, 162 Mich App 695; 413 NW2d 90 (1987), as discussed in Judge Beasley's dissenting opinion. Although this may limit plaintiff's ability to obtain competent witnesses, we do not believe this would work an undue hardship on him. If the only persons willing to testify as to the reliability of thermography are those with a substantial financial interest in its practice, surely that field of medicine cannot claim to be widely accepted as reliable by the scientific community.
427 Mich 32; 398 NW2d 896 (19861.