Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctrgreen2 sentences2007As the Court of Appeals explained in Tate v Detroit Receiving Hosp, 249 Mich App 212, 218 ; 642 NW2d 346 (2002), “the statute expressly uses the word ‘specialty,’ as opposed to ‘specialties,’ thereby implying that the specialty requirement is tied to the occurrence of the alleged malpractice and not unrelated specialties that a defendant physician may hold.” [Woodard, supra at 559 .] Applying this reasoning, Woodard ultimately held that MCL 600.2169(1) requires that only a single relevant specialty or board certification match, not that multiple specialties or board certifications match. 2007Quoting Tate v Detroit Receiving Hosp, 249 Mich App 212, 218 ; 642 NW2d 346 *627 (2002), the Court opined “ ‘that the specialty requirement is tied to the occurrence of the alleged malpractice and not unrelated specialties that a defendant physician may hold.’ ” Woodard, supra at 559 . | 1 | 6 |
Tate v. Detroit Receiving Hospitalgreen2 sentences2007Quoting Tate v Detroit Receiving Hosp, 249 Mich App 212, 218 ; 642 NW2d 346 *627 (2002), the Court opined “ ‘that the specialty requirement is tied to the occurrence of the alleged malpractice and not unrelated specialties that a defendant physician may hold.’ ” Woodard, supra at 559 . 2007Quoting Tate v Detroit Receiving Hosp, 249 Mich App 212, 218 ; 642 NW2d 346 *627 (2002), the Court opined “ ‘that the specialty requirement is tied to the occurrence of the alleged malpractice and not unrelated specialties that a defendant physician may hold.’ ” Woodard, supra at 559 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. St John Hospital & Medical Center
green
2 sentences2023In Gonzalez v St John Hosp & Med Ctr (On Reconsideration), 275 Mich App 290 ; 739 NW2d 392 (2007), this Court considered how the same specialty requirement applied to a resident. 2023In Gonzalez v St John Hosp & Med Ctr (On Reconsideration), 275 Mich App 290 ; 739 NW2d 392 (2007), this Court considered how the same specialty requirement applied to a resident. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Edry v. Adelman
green
2 sentences2017Pursuant to subsection (1)(b), 9 Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260 ; 884 NW2d 227 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich 634, 639 ; 786 NW2d 567 (2010). 12 MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b) (emphasis added). -6- if the defendant physician is a specialist, the expert witness must have “during the year immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, devoted a majority of his or her professional time to either . . . the active clinical practice of that specialty [or][t]he instruction of students in an . . . accredited health professional school or accredit 2017Pursuant to subsection (1)(b), 9 Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260 ; 884 NW2d 227 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich 634, 639 ; 786 NW2d 567 (2010). 12 MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b) (emphasis added). -6- if the defendant physician is a specialist, the expert witness must have “during the year immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, devoted a majority of his or her professional time to either . . . the active clinical practice of that specialty [or][t]he instruction of students in an . . . accredited health professional school or accredit | 2 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Lomeli
green
2 sentences2017Article 22 provides in pertinent part as follows: 7 “The phrases ‘doctrine of specialty’ and ‘doctrine of speciality’ are used interchangeably[.]” United States v Lomeli, 596 F3d 496 , 500 n 2 (CA 8, 2010). 8 Below, defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the Rule of Specialty was violated. 2017Article 22 provides in pertinent part as follows: 7 “The phrases ‘doctrine of specialty’ and ‘doctrine of speciality’ are used interchangeably[.]” United States v Lomeli, 596 F3d 496 , 500 n 2 (CA 8, 2010). 8 Below, defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the Rule of Specialty was violated. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Rock v. Crocker
green
2 sentences2017Pursuant to subsection (1)(b), 9 Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260 ; 884 NW2d 227 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich 634, 639 ; 786 NW2d 567 (2010). 12 MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b) (emphasis added). -6- if the defendant physician is a specialist, the expert witness must have “during the year immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, devoted a majority of his or her professional time to either . . . the active clinical practice of that specialty [or][t]he instruction of students in an . . . accredited health professional school or accredit 2017Pursuant to subsection (1)(b), 9 Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260 ; 884 NW2d 227 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich 634, 639 ; 786 NW2d 567 (2010). 12 MCL 600.2169(1)(a) and (b) (emphasis added). -6- if the defendant physician is a specialist, the expert witness must have “during the year immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, devoted a majority of his or her professional time to either . . . the active clinical practice of that specialty [or][t]he instruction of students in an . . . accredited health professional school or accredit | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Halloran v. Bhan
green
1 sentence2016The Halloran Court ultimately established that the board-certification requirement is an “additional requirement for expert witness testimony’ that applies “ ‘in spite of the specialty requirement. .. .” Halloran, 470 Mich at 578 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McDougall v. Schanz
green
1 sentence2002Indeed, McDougall, supra at 24-25 , states that “the statute operates to preclude certain witnesses from testifying solely on the basis of the witness’ lack of practice or teaching experience in the relevant specialty.” (Emphasis added.) The trial court in this case failed to correctly interpret and apply the provisions of § 2169. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.