Opinion ID: 1691977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: additional issues in dziurlikowski

Text: Having affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to grant plaintiffs a new trial in Dziurlikowski, we note that plaintiffs have raised two other issues. First, it is claimed that the trial court's refusal to allow impeachment of the defendant's expert by the use of an article in Anesthesiology was error. While we are not entirely convinced that the ruling was incorrect, [16] we do not address that issue in this case. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it stated: The trial court expressly stated that it would reconsider its decision if plaintiffs presented some authority in support of their position within the following two days. Plaintiffs' attorney indicated satisfaction with that ruling and remarked that he would notify opposing counsel the next day if he planned to pursue the matter further. The issue was never reintroduced, leading us to conclude that plaintiffs abandoned this issue as a matter of trial strategy. For us to reverse on this basis now might encourage parties to harbor error on the record to be used in the event of an unfavorable verdict. [143 Mich App 734.] Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this issue has not been properly preserved for appellate review and thus decline to consider it. Finally, plaintiffs in Dziurlikowski claim that the jury instruction given in this case that charged that the jurors may not arrive at a verdict by the process of guess, conjecture or speculation was erroneous. They further claim that, because one of the defendants' witnesses explained his inclusion of the words presumed brachial plexus injury from hyperextension in the discharge summary as speculation, their case was sufficiently prejudiced, on this ground alone, to require reversal. We disagree. The instruction correctly informed the jury as to its responsibility and only charged that it may not use speculation to arrive at the verdict, a correct statement of the law. It did not charge that an opinion by a doctor on a report, which was arrived at entirely or partially by speculation, must be disregarded, and the jurors were instructed that they must determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give testimony. The jury was further charged: In doing so you may take into account each witness' ability and opportunity to observe his or her memory, his or her manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he or she may have, and the reasonableness of his or her testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case. Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded that this additional instruction was error in this case.