Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
317 Mich. App. 497
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Alonzo Garvin was treated by Spine Specialists of Michigan (owned solely by Dr. Louis Radden) after a motor-vehicle accident; Spine Specialists sued State Farm seeking payment for treatment (epidural and facet joint steroid injections) that State Farm denied as unreasonable or not accident-related.
- Spine Specialists listed Dr. Radden as a witness (not as an expert) on its witness lists; State Farm also listed him as an ordinary witness and noticed his deposition.
- Dr. Radden refused to be deposed unless State Farm paid $5,000 for three hours; Spine Specialists filed a motion to enforce an expert-witness fee, asserting Dr. Radden would be asked for medical opinions.
- The circuit court granted the motion and ordered State Farm to pay $1,000 for the first 90 minutes and $250 per 15 minutes thereafter; State Farm’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- State Farm appealed. The Court of Appeals considered whether MCR 2.302(B)(4) permits payment to a party’s owner-physician for deposition testimony and whether requiring payment would be just under the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCR 2.302(B)(4) requires the deposing party to pay an expert fee to Dr. Radden for his deposition | Dr. Radden will be asked for expert opinions about causation and necessity and thus is entitled to an expert fee | Rule applies only to independent/retained experts; a party’s employee/owner who testifies for the party is not an expert entitled to a fee | Court held Dr. Radden is not an expert for fee purposes under MCR 2.302(B)(4) because he is a party’s representative/agent and not a retained third‑party expert |
| Whether a court may order the opposing party to pay a party’s owner-physician for deposition time absent manifest injustice | Spine Specialists argued payment is appropriate to compensate time spent giving expert opinion | State Farm argued conditioning deposition on payment imposes an unfair burden and is manifestly unjust | Court held requiring payment would be manifest injustice and would unreasonably burden discovery; even if eligible, fee order was erroneous |
| Whether listing/labeling a witness as an expert is determinative | Spine Specialists contended Dr. Radden’s forthcoming opinions make him an expert regardless of label | State Farm noted witness lists identified him as an ordinary witness and he acquired facts during treatment, not in anticipation of litigation | Court relied on role and party affiliation over labels: party’s own physician who treated the patient is not the kind of third‑party expert contemplated by the rule |
| Whether the court rules or statute otherwise permit shifting expert fees here | Spine Specialists suggested MCL 600.2164 or the rule supports fee shifting for expert testimony | State Farm argued statutory cost-shifting doesn’t apply because no payment was made by Spine Specialists and statute exempts fact witnesses | Court noted MCL 600.2164 does not mandate payment here and would not allow Spine Specialists to recover such fees when it did not pay its witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich. App. 406 (review standard for court-rule construction)
- CAM Constr. v. Lake Edgewood Condo. Ass’n, 465 Mich. 549 (use plain language to interpret rules)
- Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co., 227 Mich. App. 614 (purpose of discovery is to simplify and clarify issues)
- Domako v. Rowe, 438 Mich. 347 (discovery rules should promote discovery of true facts)
- Barnett v. Hidalgo, 478 Mich. 151 (distinguishing party’s relationship to experts)
- Rickwalt v. Richfield Lakes Corp., 246 Mich. App. 450 (statutory allocation of expert witness fees and limits)