Court Opinion

ID: 9504419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:27.326394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:00.296921
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur with the majority that plaintiffs counsel had a reasonable belief that plaintiffs expert met the requirements for filing an affidavit of merit under MCL 600.2912d. However, I write separately because I do not believe that MCL 600.2169 requires an expert witness to match board certifications in all cases.1 A proper reading of the statute indicates that board certifications and specialties must match only when the board certification or specialty is relevant to the alleged malpractice at issue. Therefore, I concur with the result reached in this case.
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.

 I still strongly believe that MCL 600.2169 is unconstitutional, as discussed in my dissent in McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 37-72; 597 NW2d 148 (1999).