In its Opinion filed on July 25, 2024, the State of Michigan Supreme Court stated: “In these medical malpractice cases, we clarify the standard of care requirements for expert medical witnesses under MCL 600.2169, as interpreted in Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 719 NW2d 842 (2006).”
The Woodard Court attempted to explain the statute’s requirement that a plaintiff’s proposed expert must match the “one most relevant standard of care,” i.e., the specialty engaged in by the defendant physician during the course of the alleged malpractice. Woodard noted that the statute makes clear “that a physician can be a specialist who is not board certified” and that “a ‘specialist’ is somebody who can potentially become board certified.” The Court then held, based upon the definitions it set forth, that if the defendant physician was practicing a particular branch of medicine or surgery in which one can potentially become board certified at the time of the alleged malpractice, then the plaintiff’s expert must have practiced or taught the same particular branch of medicine or surgery for a majority of their time in the preceding year. Furthermore, if a defendant physician specializes in a subspecialty and was certified in and practicing that subspecialty, the plaintiff’s expert witness must be certified in the same subspecialty as the defendant physician.
In its July 25, 2024 Opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court held: “We conclude that Woodard was in part wrongly decided and must be overruled in part because the test adopted by the Woodard Court regarding the evaluation of specialists in medical malpractice actions is inconsistent with the statutory language in MCL 600.2169.”
“Specifically, Woodard incorrectly conflated the terms “specialty” and “subspecialty” in a manner that is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute, and it essentially negated MCL 600.2169(2) and (3), which provide significant
discretion to trial courts to exclude experts even when such experts qualify under Subsection (1). We hold that with respect to medical malpractice claims filed against physicians, the words “specialist” and “specialties” as used in MCL 600.2169(1) are defined as the specialties recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS), or other similar nationally recognized umbrella-based physician certifying entities. Further, we hold that the “matching” requirement under MCL 600.2169 follows the listed general board certifications, which are the baseline “specialties” recognized by such entities for certification purposes. The statute does not require matching of subspecialties. We also emphasize that a trial court must ensure that experts with matching specialties under MCL 600.2169(1) meet other criteria set forth in MCL 600.2169(2) and that MCL 600.2169(3) provides trial courts with broad discretion in assessing experts.”
The Michigan Supreme Court concluded: “We conclude that Woodard was in part wrongly decided and must be overruled in part. Woodard provided a skewed and inaccurate construction of MCL 600.2169, which has resulted in highly qualified experts being disqualified. Woodard incorrectly conflated the terms “specialty” and “subspecialty” in a manner that was inconsistent with and changed the meaning of the plain language of the statute, and it failed to highlight the significant discretion provided to trial courts under MCL 600.2169(2) and (3) to exclude experts even when such experts qualify under Subsection (1). We hold that that the words “specialist” and “specialties” as used in MCL 600.2169(1) are defined as the specialties recognized by the ABMS, AOA, ABPS, or other nationally recognized physician umbrellacertifying organizations. Further, we hold that the “matching” requirement under MCL 600.2169 is limited to the relevant board certification specialty and does not require matching of subspecialties. And we reiterate that a trial court must ensure that experts with matching specialties under MCL 600.2169(1) must also satisfy MCL 600.2169(2) and that MCL 600.2169(3) provides trial courts with broad discretion in assessing experts.”
Source Stokes v. Swofford, No. 162302; Sellman v. Colton, No. 163226.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
