Brenda Hoogenstyn v. Orthopaedic Associates of Grand Rapids Pc
332063
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff underwent rotator cuff surgery in April 2012 performed by Dr. Julian Kuz (orthopedic surgeon, board certified, with a Certificate of Added Qualification (CAQ) in surgery of the hand) and later suffered a stroke; plaintiff alleged failure to prescribe postoperative anticoagulation (e.g., aspirin) to prevent clots.
- Plaintiff designated a single standard-of-care expert, Dr. Richard Matza, who was board certified in orthopedic surgery but did not hold a CAQ in hand surgery.
- Defendants moved to strike Dr. Matza under MCL 600.2169(1)(a), arguing that where a defendant is a board-certified specialist with a certificate of added qualification, the plaintiff’s expert must hold the same certification.
- The trial court disqualified Dr. Matza from testifying about the standard of care, gave plaintiff time to disclose a qualified substitute expert with the same CAQ, and ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice when no substitute was produced.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether Dr. Kuz’s CAQ in “surgery of the hand” was the one most relevant specialty for the shoulder surgery and whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Matza and dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s expert met MCL 600.2169(1)(a) qualification requirements | Matza’s general orthopedic board certification suffices; the CAQ title "surgery of the hand" should be taken at face value and not treated as the controlling specialty | Because Kuz held a CAQ in hand surgery, the plaintiff’s expert must have the same CAQ; hand surgery CAQ covers the entire upper extremity including the shoulder and thus is the most relevant specialty | The CAQ in hand surgery was the one most relevant specialty; Matza lacked the required CAQ and was properly disqualified |
| Whether the CAQ term "surgery of the hand" applies to shoulder surgeries | The CAQ title is narrow and should not be read to include shoulder procedures | Evidence showed hand/upper-extremity specialty includes fingertips through shoulder; training/exams and professional definitions support that scope | The record supports that the CAQ covers the entire upper extremity including the shoulder; court may consider technical meaning of the term |
| Whether exclusion of the only standard-of-care expert justified dismissal with prejudice when no substitute was produced | Exclusion was erroneous, so dismissal was improper | Plaintiff failed to comply with court order to produce a qualified expert; dismissal was within trial court’s discretion | Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice for failure to produce a qualified replacement expert |
| Standard of review for expert qualification and dismissal | N/A | N/A | Appellate review is for abuse of discretion for both expert-qualification rulings and dismissal for failure to comply with court orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich. 545 (Mich. 2006) (construing MCL 600.2169(1) and holding plaintiff’s expert must match the defendant’s one most relevant specialty or subspecialty and matching board certification or certificate of special qualifications)
- Woods v. SLB Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 277 Mich. App. 622 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. Secura Ins., 482 Mich. 507 (Mich. 2008) (defining abuse of discretion as decisions outside reasonable and principled outcomes)