plaintiff the recognized standard in Michigan

2023Perez, therefore, had to present an expert witness able to testify that [t]he defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. [MCL 600.2912a(1)(a).] “An expert familiar with the standard of care in a community may testify concerning the standard of care in that community, although he has not practiced in the communi

2023Perez, therefore, had to present an expert witness able to testify that [t]he defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. [MCL 600.2912a(1)(a).] “An expert familiar with the standard of care in a community may testify concerning the standard of care in that community, although he has not practiced in the communi

2008See, e.g., Morgan v. Taylor, 434 Mich. 180 , 451 N.W.2d 852 (1990); Naccarato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248, 252 , 180 N.W.2d 788 (1970); Skeffington v. Bradley, 366 Mich. 552 , 115 N.W.2d 303 (1962). *112 When the Court decided Falcon , MCL 600.2912a read: In an action alleging malpractice the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community in which the defendant pra

2008See, e.g., Morgan v. Taylor, 434 Mich. 180 , 451 N.W.2d 852 (1990); Naccarato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248, 252 , 180 N.W.2d 788 (1970); Skeffington v. Bradley, 366 Mich. 552 , 115 N.W.2d 303 (1962). *112 When the Court decided Falcon , MCL 600.2912a read: In an action alleging malpractice the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community in which the defendant pra

2023“Generally, expert testimony is required in a malpractice case in order to establish the applicable standard of care and to demonstrate that the professional breached that standard.” Elher, 499 Mich at 21 .

2020In Broz, 326 Mich App at 540 , we noted that the language of MCL 600.2912a(1) does not specifically state that it applies to accounting malpractice, but provides that “in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving” that the defendant “failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care.” Giving this language its plain and ordinary meaning, we observed that the statute indicates that the Legislature meant it to apply to an action alleging malpractice “without exception.” Broz, 326 Mich App at 540 .

2020In Broz, 326 Mich App at 540 , we noted that the language of MCL 600.2912a(1) does not specifically state that it applies to accounting malpractice, but provides that “in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving” that the defendant “failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care.” Giving this language its plain and ordinary meaning, we observed that the statute indicates that the Legislature meant it to apply to an action alleging malpractice “without exception.” Broz, 326 Mich App at 540 .

2010MCL 600.2912a provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. 5 O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 485 Mich

2010MCL 600.2912a provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. 5 O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 485 Mich

2010MCL 600.2912a provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. 5 O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 485 Mich

2010MCL 600.2912a provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. 5 O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 485 Mich

2010MCL 600.2912a provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. 5 O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 485 Mich

2008See, e.g., Morgan v. Taylor, 434 Mich. 180 , 451 N.W.2d 852 (1990); Naccarato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248, 252 , 180 N.W.2d 788 (1970); Skeffington v. Bradley, 366 Mich. 552 , 115 N.W.2d 303 (1962). *112 When the Court decided Falcon , MCL 600.2912a read: In an action alleging malpractice the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community in which the defendant pra

2008See, e.g., Morgan v. Taylor, 434 Mich. 180 , 451 N.W.2d 852 (1990); Naccarato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248, 252 , 180 N.W.2d 788 (1970); Skeffington v. Bradley, 366 Mich. 552 , 115 N.W.2d 303 (1962). *112 When the Court decided Falcon , MCL 600.2912a read: In an action alleging malpractice the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community in which the defendant pra

2006Additionally, the statute does not require a nonlocal expert “to contact physicians in one area to determine the applicable standard of care in that community or to determine whether that community is similar to another community.” Turbin v Graesser (On Remand), 214 Mich App 215, 219 ; 542 NW2d 607 (1995).

2006Additionally, the statute does not require a nonlocal expert “to contact physicians in one area to determine the applicable standard of care in that community or to determine whether that community is similar to another community.” Turbin v Graesser (On Remand), 214 Mich App 215, 219 ; 542 NW2d 607 (1995).