Rock v. Crocker
308 Mich. App. 155
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Dustin Rock underwent orthopedic surgery by Dr. K. Thomas Crocker for a trimalleolar ankle fracture and later sued for medical malpractice alleging breaches during surgery and post‑operative care.
- Before trial, the court ruled on multiple motions in limine; this appeal concerns exclusion of one expert’s standard‑of‑care testimony and two evidentiary rulings raised on cross‑appeal.
- Plaintiff offered Dr. Viviano, a treating physician, as an expert; Viviano was board‑certified in orthopedic surgery at the time of the alleged malpractice but his certification lapsed before trial.
- Defendant sought to exclude Viviano’s testimony under MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and moved to strike or exclude two specific alleged breaches (use/placement of plate and screws; advice to bear weight) for lack of causation.
- Plaintiff moved to exclude evidence of no‑fault (PIP) insurance benefits he received after the automobile accident that caused the injury; defendant sought to admit those benefits to support a malingering theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Viviano may testify to the applicable standard of care under MCL 600.2169(1)(a) | Viviano was board‑certified in orthopedic surgery at the time of the occurrence and thus qualifies to testify | Expert must be board‑certified at the time of testimony (present), so Viviano is disqualified because his certification lapsed | Reversed: Expert qualification is measured at time of occurrence; Viviano may testify on standard of care |
| Whether plaintiff may recover damages for two alleged breaches where his own expert testified those breaches did not cause injury | Rock conceded that causation evidence is lacking for those two acts but argued evidence of other breaches bears on defendant’s overall competence | Those two claims lack causation so damages for them should be barred; evidence of them should be excluded or limited | In part reversed: Plaintiff may not recover damages for those two breaches; trial court must reconsider admissibility/limiting instruction for related evidence |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of plaintiff’s no‑fault insurance benefits | Introduction of PIP benefits would prejudice plaintiff and risk juror confusion/redundant reduction of damages (statutory offset post‑verdict) | Evidence is probative to show malingering/motivation to obtain benefits and to impeach plaintiff’s claimed injuries | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding PIP benefits under MRE 403 and collateral source concerns; parties can still present other evidence of malingering |
| Scope of trial court’s use of MRE 403 balancing for collateral source evidence | Evidence of PIP is cumulative and risks mini‑trial and juror confusion about offsets; probative value is minimal | PIP payments are probative of motive and symptom exaggeration | Affirmed: exclusion proper because prejudice/confusion outweighed probative value |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich. 545 (Sup. Ct.) (expert must match defendant's specialty and, if defendant is board certified, expert must also have that certification)
- Bush v. Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory construction principles; read statute as a whole)
- Halloran v. Bhan, 470 Mich. 572 (Sup. Ct.) (second sentence of MCL 600.2169(1)(a) imposes an additional requirement re: board certification)
- Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 435 Mich. 33 (Sup. Ct.) (insurance coverage evidence generally inadmissible except where probative of malingering or motive)
- Wischmeyer v. Schanz, 449 Mich. 469 (Sup. Ct.) (causation requirement for recovery in malpractice; partial dismissal where no evidence of causation)
- King v. Reed, 278 Mich. App. 504 (Ct. App.) (do not read into statute matters not expressed by Legislature)
- Greer v. Advantage Health, 305 Mich. App. 192 (Ct. App.) (statutory procedure for reducing verdict by collateral source payments post‑verdict)