Court Opinion

ID: 9738410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:52:25.843322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.983432
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.
(concurring). I agree in the decision announced in Judge McGregor’s opinion. However, I do so solely on the basis of Abbe v Woman’s Hospital Association, 35 Mich App 429; 192 NW2d 691 (1971), cited in footnote 3 by Judge McGregor, in which our Court held that a general surgeon does not fall within the category of a specialist. Consequently, the testimony of plaintiffs expert witness, Dr. Huebner, a general surgeon, was subject to the "similar community rule”. I do not *314think it necessary or wise to go further and justify our decision by reference to Naccarato v Grob, 384 Mich 248; 180 NW2d 788 (1970). As was said by this Court in the recent case of Siirila v Barrios, 58 Mich App 721; 228 NW2d 801 (1975):
"This is a malpractice suit wherein the plaintiffs ask us to extend the holding of Naccarato v Grob, 384 Mich 248; 180 NW2d 788 (1970), to general practitioners. This we cannot do. Such action can only be taken by the Supreme Court.” Siirila v Barrios, supra, at 722.
My colleague’s opinion extends Naccarato by drawing distinctions in the types of activities performed by the medical specialist. I do not believe this was intended by the holding therein. If so, it is a distinction which should be taken by the Supreme Court. More importantly, the distinction is not necessary for the result arrived at in this case.