Katherine Kacmarsky v. Edward W Sparrow Hospital Association, 333175

Plaintiff, born with epidermolysis bullosa, developed a suspicious foot lesion that was eventually diagnosed as melanoma after multiple podiatric encounters and delayed diagnosis, leading to advanced cancer and amputation.
Defendant Thomson (podiatrist) performed debridement and a biopsy in June 2011 while employed by Throckmorton; subsequent follow-ups and referrals occurred; other podiatrists later biopsied the lesion with a diagnostic delay.
Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice and alleged defendants breached the standard of care; plaintiff offered Dr. Philip Obiedzinski (New Jersey podiatrist) as her standard-of-care expert.
Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) arguing plaintiff failed to establish the applicable local standard of care; trial court granted the motion and dismissed claims against Thomson and related vicarious-liability defendants.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, submitting an affidavit that Obiedzinski had familiarized himself with Lansing standards; the trial court declined to consider the new affidavit and denied reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable standard of care (local vs. national)	Locality rule outdated; Obiedzinski follows universal/national standards applicable to Lansing	Podiatrists are general practitioners — local community standard applies under MCL 600.2912a and case law	Local standard applies; plaintiff must prove local standard of care
Qualification of plaintiff's expert to testify to local standard	Obiedzinski could learn local standard before trial; his criticisms reflect universal standards so locality knowledge unnecessary	Obiedzinski lacks familiarity with Lansing/similar community and cannot establish local standard at motion stage	Expert not qualified; deposition showed lack of Lansing familiarity; summary disposition proper
Timing/evidence for expert familiarity at summary-judgment stage	Expert can become familiar later; updated affidavit submitted with motion for reconsideration shows familiarity	Court may require proof at summary-disposition stage; evidence could have been produced earlier	Trial court properly required evidence at (C)(10) stage and reasonably declined to consider belated affidavit
Whether universal standards negate locality requirement	Universal aspects of care exist, but locality rule still controls and plaintiff must show applicability	Local differences in resources/technology justify locality rule; universal standards do not avoid requirement	Universal standards do not override statutory and precedential local-standard rule

Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200 (discusses (C)(10) summary-disposition evidentiary framework)
Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153 (party opposing properly supported (C)(10) motion must submit evidentiary materials)
Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446 (definition of genuine issue of material fact for summary disposition)
Bahr v. Harper-Grace Hosps., 448 Mich. 135 (standard of care: local for general practitioners, national for specialists)
Kalaj v. Khan, 295 Mich. App. 420 (elements required to sustain medical-malpractice claim)
Birmingham v. Vance, 204 Mich. App. 418 (expert must possess necessary knowledge to testify to local standard)
Turbin v. Graesser, 214 Mich. App. 215 (expert may testify to local standard if sufficiently familiarized with community)
Mazey v. Adams, 191 Mich. App. 328 (expert need not practice locally but must be competent to testify regarding local standard)
McGhee v. Helsel, 262 Mich. App. 221 (court of appeals bound by Supreme Court precedent regarding statutory interpretation)