Brent Thayne v. Stephan Bradshaw, 334442

Background

On August 17, 2013, Brent Thayne’s stopped car was rear-ended by Stephan Bradshaw; Thayne sued Bradshaw (negligence, and loss of consortium via Wanda Thayne) and Allstate (breach of underinsured motorist coverage).
The trial court imposed a scheduling order requiring identification of expert witnesses by February 16, 2016; plaintiff filed a witness list that day naming Dr. Michael Heidenreich as an expert.
Plaintiff later filed a third amended witness list (April 14, 2016) adding Dr. Chris Van Ee (biomechanical engineer) and supplemented interrogatory responses identifying Dr. Heidenreich as expected to opine that the crash caused or aggravated a vascular condition; Van Ee was described as consulted but not retained.
Bradshaw moved to strike the third amended witness list and to preclude testimony from Drs. Heidenreich and Van Ee; the trial court granted the motion and precluded the experts, then granted summary disposition for defendants on causation grounds.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to ‘carefully consider’ the Dean factors before imposing the severe sanction of preclusion and found plaintiff had presented admissible evidence of causation from treating physicians (including a letter from vascular surgeon Dr. Judith Lin).
The Court reversed the trial court’s orders (summary disposition for Bradshaw and Allstate; striking the witness list; and case evaluation sanctions) and remanded for further proceedings with instructions to apply the Dean factors and to consider whether plaintiff may present treating physicians as experts under the court rules.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly struck plaintiff’s third amended witness list and precluded expert testimony for failure to comply with scheduling order	Thayne: court failed to consider Dean factors; sanctions were harsh and experts (Heidenreich timely; Van Ee good-cause) should not be precluded	Bradshaw: late disclosure prejudiced defense; sanction was appropriate to enforce scheduling order	Reversed — court abused discretion by not applying/recording consideration of Dean factors; remand to weigh those factors and good cause for Van Ee; Heidenreich was timely named as of Feb 16 deadline
Whether plaintiff presented admissible evidence of medical causation to survive summary disposition	Thayne: treating physicians (and Dr. Lin’s letter) created a genuine issue of material fact on causation	Bradshaw/Allstate: no admissible expert evidence causally linking crash to aneurysm thrombosis	Reversed — treating physicians’ evidence (in substance) sufficed to defeat C(10) motion; trial court erred excluding that evidence as nonadmissible in content
Whether treating physicians could be designated as experts despite not being listed as such initially	Thayne: court should allow them as experts after weighing Dean factors and MCR 2.401 provisions	Defendants: too late; designation prejudices defense and violates scheduling order	Remanded — trial court must apply Dean factors and MCR 2.401(I)(1)(b) before permitting expert designation
Whether this Court should decide admissibility/qualification of defendants’ proposed experts (Funk and Rundell) on appeal	Thayne: asked to exclude Funk and Rundell under MRE 702	Defendants: experts qualified and can opine on causation	Not addressed on merits — issue unpreserved because trial court did not rule; appellate court will not consider it first on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Duray Dev, LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143 (nonexhaustive Dean factors for witness-sanction analysis)
Dean v. Tucker, 182 Mich. App. 27 (sanctions for failure to disclose witnesses; caution against harsh sanctions without careful consideration)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standards for evaluating MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition)
Jilek v. Stockson (On Remand), 297 Mich. App. 663 (standard of review for sanctions for discovery violations)
Thorne v. Bell, 206 Mich. App. 625 (dismissal not justified absent history of recalcitrance for discovery violations)
Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (abuse of discretion standard explanation)
Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (summary disposition burden under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Barnard Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Gates Performance Eng’g, Inc., 285 Mich. App. 362 (substance of evidence may suffice at summary disposition even if not in admissible form)
Fast Air, Inc. v. Knight, 235 Mich. App. 541 (appellate courts decline to address unpreserved issues)