On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , C.J. ( dissenting .) I would reverse for the reasons set forth by Judge S ERVITTO in her Court of Appeals dissent. In re Roberdeaux Estate , unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 18, 2016 (Docket No. 323802) (S ERVITTO , J., dissenting). A “standard of care” expert in a medical malpractice action must have “devoted a majority of his or her professional time to . . . [t]he active clinical practice of the same health profession in which the party . . . on whose behalf the testimony is offered” practices. MCL *2 2 600.2169(1)(b)( i ). In Woodard v Custer , 476 Mich 545, 560 (2006), this Court held that an expert “must match the one most relevant standard of practice or care—the specialty engaged in by the defendant physician during the course of the alleged malpractice . . . .” And in Woodard ’s companion case, Hamilton v Kuligowski , we struck plaintiff’s expert’s testimony when defendant was a specialist in internal medicine and plaintiff’s expert specialized in infectious diseases, a subspecialty of internal medicine. Id . at 577-578. Largely the same reasoning applies here. Defendant practiced general internal medicine, while her expert practiced geriatrics, a subspecialty of internal medicine. Under Woodard and Hamilton , the testimony of defendant’s expert should not have been admitted.

B ERNSTEIN , J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam Bernstein Law Firm.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. June 30, 2017

d0627 Clerk