22 N.W.3d 97
Mich.2024Background
- Two consolidated Michigan medical-malpractice appeals: Stokes v. Swofford (radiology/neuroradiology) and Selliman v. Colton (rhinoplasty / otolaryngology vs facial plastic surgery). Both reached the Michigan Supreme Court after conflicting trial- and appellate-court rulings about expert-qualification rules under MCL 600.2169.
- MCL 600.2169(1) requires a plaintiff’s expert to be licensed and, if the defendant is a specialist, to practice in the “same specialty” (and if board-certified, to be board-certified in that specialty); subsection (1)(b) requires a majority of the expert’s professional time in the relevant specialty during the preceding year. Subsections (2) and (3) give trial courts additional evaluative factors and discretion to disqualify experts.
- Woodard v. Custer (2006) had held that “specialty” includes “subspecialty,” required matching the one most relevant specialty or subspecialty, and that an expert must devote a majority of time to that single specialty/subspecialty — a test that produced inconsistent results in later cases.
- In Stokes the plaintiff offered a neuroradiologist (Dr. Berger) to challenge a diagnostic radiologist (Dr. Swofford) who had read a brain scan; lower courts disagreed whether the relevant specialty was diagnostic radiology or neuroradiology and whether the expert qualified. In Selliman the defendant and proposed expert shared board certifications (otolaryngology and facial plastic surgery) but disagreed over which specialty was "most relevant" to a cosmetic rhinoplasty and whether the expert spent a majority of time in that specialty.
- The Supreme Court held Woodard was partly wrongly decided: the statutory “matching” requirement in MCL 600.2169(1) is limited to general board-recognized specialties (as recognized by ABMS/AOA/ABPS or similar umbrella entities) and does not require precise subspecialty matching; trial courts must still apply subsections (2) and (3) to assess qualifications and may exclude experts on other grounds.
- Case outcomes on remand: Stokes — the expert (Dr. Berger) satisfies §2169 because neuroradiology is subsumed within the broader ABMS specialty of diagnostic radiology (affirmed in part/reversed in part and remanded); Selliman — Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial court factfinding on whether facial plastic and reconstructive surgery is a separate specialty or a subspecialty for §2169 purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "specialty" in MCL 600.2169(1) requires matching of subspecialties | Plaintiff (Stokes/Selliman) argued expert must match the specialty/subspecialty actually practiced at the time of the alleged malpractice (Woodard rule) | Defendants argued the statute should be read to require matching only at the general, board-recognized specialty level | Held: "Specialty" matching is limited to general board-recognized specialties (ABMS/AOA/ABPS or similar); statute does not require matching subspecialties. |
| Whether an expert must have devoted a majority of professional time to the defendant’s subspecialty | Plaintiff relied on Woodard: majority-time test applies to the one most relevant specialty/subspecialty | Defendants argued majority-time should be measured at the general specialty level or trial court should have discretion | Held: Majority-time requirement remains, but it applies to the matched general specialty under §2169(1); courts must evaluate time devotion and may use §2169(2)/(3) discretion. |
| Role of MCL 600.2169(2) and (3) after Woodard | Plaintiffs relied on Woodard’s tight §2169(1) matching, minimizing subsections' role | Defendants urged trial-court discretion to evaluate training, area of specialization, relevancy, and to disqualify experts on other grounds | Held: Subsections (2) and (3) are meaningful checks — trial courts must assess education, specialization, practice length, relevancy and retain broad discretion to exclude experts even if §2169(1) is met. |
| Application to the facts (Stokes and Selliman) | Stokes: plaintiff argued neuroradiology was the one most relevant specialty; Selliman: plaintiff argued otolaryngology was the relevant specialty | Stokes defendant argued diagnostic radiology is the relevant ABMS specialty; Selliman defendant argued facial plastic surgery was the relevant specialty and the expert lacked majority-time in it | Held: Stokes — expert qualified because neuroradiology is subsumed within the general specialty of diagnostic radiology and the expert spent majority time in diagnostic radiology; Selliman — remanded for trial court factfinding whether facial plastic and reconstructive surgery is a distinct specialty or a subspecialty under §2169. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich 545 (Mich. 2006) (prior interpretation requiring subspecialty matching under MCL 600.2169 — partially overruled)
- Wischmeyer v. Schanz, 449 Mich 469 (Mich. 1995) (elements of medical-malpractice claim)
- Elher v. Misra, 499 Mich 11 (Mich. 2016) (expert testimony required to prove standard of care/breach)
- Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (Mich. 2000) (stare decisis/three-factor test for overruling precedent)
- Francisco v. Parchment Med Clinic, P.C., 407 Mich 325 (Mich. 1980) (specialists held to a fieldwide, not locality, standard of care)
- Cudnik v. William Beaumont Hosp., 207 Mich App 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (standard of care reference for specialty practice)