Court Opinion

ID: 9670651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:56.502305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.837908
License: Public Domain

J. Stempion, J.
(concurring). I concur with the conclusions of the majority opinion. The analysis and conclusion that a podiatrist is a general practitioner is correct. The application of a local standard of care as opposed to a national standard of care for general practitioners is in keeping with current law. However, the preservation of the locality rule is not a realistic manner for evaluation of the standard of care as stated by this Court in Birmingham v Vance, 204 Mich App 418; 516 NW2d 95 (1994). I join in the request made in the Birmingham case that the Supreme Court revisit this area and adopt the modifications suggested.