Rock v. Crocker
499 Mich. 247
| Mich. | 2016Background
- Dustin Rock fractured his ankle; Dr. K. Thomas Crocker (board-certified orthopedic surgeon) performed initial surgery and follow-up care; Dr. David Viviano later performed a second surgery.
- Rock sued for medical malpractice alleging 10 negligent acts; an affidavit of merit from Dr. Antoni Goral supported two specific allegations (insufficient screws/plate length and premature weight-bearing).
- Goral later admitted those two alleged breaches did not cause Rock’s injury; Crocker moved to strike those allegations and exclude related evidence.
- Trial court denied the motion (finding the evidence relevant to Crocker’s general competency and admissible under MRE 403).
- Trial court barred Viviano from testifying as a standard-of-care expert because his board certification had lapsed before trial; the Court of Appeals reversed on the expert-qualification point but upheld admission of the other-acts evidence subject to MRE 403 reconsideration.
- Michigan Supreme Court granted review to determine (1) admissibility of other-acts evidence that did not cause the injury and (2) when board-certification for an expert must be established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence about alleged breaches that did not cause injury | Rock: evidence is relevant to defendant’s general competency and helps jury understand the case | Crocker: such evidence is propensity/other-acts evidence and inadmissible to prove negligence when it did not cause the injury | Vacated Court of Appeals on this point and remanded: trial court must analyze admissibility under MRE 404(b) (proper non-propensity purpose) before applying MRE 403 |
| Timing of board-certification requirement for expert witnesses (MCL 600.2169(1)(a)) | Rock: expert who was board-certified at time of occurrence (but not at testimony) may testify | Crocker: expert must be board-certified at time of testimony/trial | Affirmed Court of Appeals: board-certification must be satisfied at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action (not at time of testimony) |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich. 67 (discusses abuse of discretion and evidence admissibility principles)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (distinguishes logical relevance from legal relevance under MRE 401–404)
- People v. Jackson, 498 Mich. 246 (explains limits on propensity evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v. Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (clarifies that MRE 404(b) is inclusionary and subject to MRE 403 balancing)
- Halloran v. Bhan, 470 Mich. 572 (statutory interpretation principles applied to expert qualification statutes)
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich. 545 (context on expert-qualification and specialty matching requirement)
- Grossman v. Brown, 470 Mich. 593 (relation between affidavit of merit and MCL 600.2169 qualifications)