Opinion ID: 848708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the statute and the legislature's intent

Text: The pertinent statutory language is located in M.C.L. § 600.2169, which provides in part: (1) In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional in this state or another state and meets the following criteria: (a) If the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist, specializes at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action in the same specialty as the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered. However, if the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist who is board certified, the expert witness must be a specialist who is board certified in that specialty. The Legislature's true intent in writing it is revealed only when one reads § 2169 in its entirety. In setting forth the requirements that an expert witness must meet before qualifying to testify regarding the standard of care in a medical malpractice case, the statute begins: [A] person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless.... M.C.L. § 600.2169 (emphasis added). Since the expert must give testimony about the appropriate standard of care, it follows that the expert's certification must be in the area of the alleged malpractice. Any other board certification would be irrelevant. The second sentence of M.C.L. § 600.2169(1)(a) begins with the adverb [h]owever, indicating that the meaning of the language that follows [h]owever contrasts with that which precedes it. The word however is less likely to suggest an additional requirement, as the majority concludes, than to suggest a different requirement in an alternative set of circumstances. Applied to this case, if the alleged malpractice were in internal medicine, the expert would have to be board-certified in that area because the defendant is board-certified in it. Alternatively, if the alleged malpractice involved a medical specialty in which defendant was not board-certified, the first sentence of the statute would control. If defendant specialized in that area, the expert witness would have to specialize in that area as well. Furthermore, M.C.L. § 600.2169(1)(b)(i) requires that an expert have devoted, in the year preceding the date of the alleged injury, a majority of his or her professional time to: The active clinical practice of the same health profession ... and, if that party is a specialist, the active clinical practice of that specialty. Specialty in this provision refers to a specific area of medical practice. This supports the conclusion that the necessary and relevant qualifications of an expert who will testify regarding the appropriate standard of care are determined by the area of the alleged malpractice. Moreover, the statute continues: In determining the qualifications of an expert witness in an action alleging medical malpractice, the court shall, at a minimum, evaluate all of the following: (a) The educational and professional training of the expert witness. (b) The area of specialization of the expert witness. (c) The length of time the expert witness has been engaged in the active clinical practice or instruction of the health profession or the specialty. (d) The relevancy of the expert witness's testimony. [M.C.L. § 600.2169(2).] Subsections 1 and 2 do not stand alone. Subsection 1 sets forth a threshold requirement applicable only to standard-of-care witnesses. But all expert witnesses, including standard-of-care witnesses, are subject to subsection 2. There is no language indicating that subsection 1 must be met before subsection 2 is applied to a standard-of-care witness. The qualification of any expert must be evaluated under subsection 2. Its criteria ensure that the testimony of the expert provides assistance to the trier of fact. The statute, read as a whole, bestows considerable discretion on the trial judge. Included is the authority to determine that the area in which the defendant is board-certified is relevant to the standard of care involved in the suit. M.C.L. § 600.2169(2). The first section of the statute is merely an additional requirement placed on standard-of-care witnesses. Subsection 2 does not exclude standard-of-care witnesses from its purview. It reads: In determining the qualifications of an expert witness in an action alleging medical malpractice.... There is no language in this section to suggest that it is applicable to all but standard-of-care witnesses. Rather, the requirements apply to an expert witness.