Court Opinion

ID: 9855189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:20:47.832229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.225143
License: Public Domain

*327KELLY, J.
(dissenting). In deciding that the summary judgment  should be affirmed, I quote with approval from the opinion of the Court of Appeals 2 as follows:
“The determinative question in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs had psittacosis. This was a question requiring expert testimony to be considered by the jury for a finding of fact at the trial, f * *
“Upon a search of the record we can find no expert medical opinion which supports the contention that the plaintiffs had psittacosis. There is no testimony upon which a finding by a trier of fact in favor of plaintiffs could be justified. Summary judgment was proper.”
The judgment should be affirmed. Costs to ap-pellees.

 Bilicki v. W. T. Grant Co. (1968), 10 Mich App 612, 613, 616.