Opinion ID: 848708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: principled approach to the statute

Text: M.C.L. § 600.2169(1) sets forth the requirements for experts who testify regarding the appropriate standard of care in medical malpractice cases. If the defendant doctor is a specialist, an expert witness must practice in the same specialty as the defendant. If the defendant is board-certified, the expert must be board-certified in the same specialty. However, it is the medical specialty in which the defendant was practicing when the malpractice allegedly occurred that is the touchstone of an expert's qualification to testify regarding the appropriate standard of care. Logically, testimony regarding the appropriate standard must pertain to the defendant's alleged breach of a specific standard of care. The statute comprehends that fact. M.C.L. § 600.2169(2)(d) requires that, when determining the qualifications of an expert witness in an action alleging medical malpractice, the court shall... evaluate ... [t]he relevancy of the expert witness's testimony. In this case, the defendant doctor was board-certified in internal medicine. Although it is undisputed that the relevant standard of care involved critical care, it is not clear whether defendant's board certification in internal medicine was relevant to the malpractice claim. If it were, in order to testify under the requirements of M.C.L. § 600.2169, the standard-of-care witness would have to be a board-certified internist. At the hearing on defendant's motion to strike, the trial court addressed neither the area of the alleged malpractice nor the relevance of defendant's board certification to that area. The court merely ascertained what paper credentials each doctor held and whether their board certifications matched. Left unresolved was whether the area of alleged malpractice must be identified before the application of M.C.L. § 600.2169. At the hearing on the motion, defendants did not argue that internal medicine was being practiced when the alleged malpractice occurred. Having no interest in discussing the area of the alleged malpractice, defendants focused solely on whether the board certifications possessed by the experts must match. In contrast, plaintiff argued that the area of medicine being practiced was the specialty of critical care medicine. Accordingly, plaintiff argued that one must consider the qualifications of the expert with regard to critical care medicine, not internal medicine. Hence, the majority correctly notes that the issue of relevancy was uncontested. Plaintiff asserted that critical care was the relevant medical area. Defendant did not dispute that claim. Only plaintiff alleged the appropriate area of medical malpractice. Defendant chose instead to argue that the board certification of defendant and plaintiff's expert must match. Thus, defendant failed to dispute plaintiff's contention that the area of critical care medicine was the proper focus. Plaintiff's expert planned to testify as a critical care doctor commenting on the care and treatment provided by another critical care doctor. He was prepared to testify that the defendant doctor breached several standards of care in critical care medicine. A conclusion that the nature of the underlying malpractice claim has no bearing on an expert witness's qualification to testify would defy the statute and its purpose. An assumption that an expert witness must hold the same board certification as that held by the defendant, even when it bears no relevance to the malpractice alleged, would be fallacious.