inappropriate or irrelevant standard in Michigan

2021“Because an expert witness is not required to testify regarding an inappropriate or irrelevant standard of medical practice or care, § 2169(1) should not be understood to require such witness to specialize in specialties and possess board certificates that are not relevant to the standard of medical practice or care about which the witness is to testify.” Woodard, 476 Mich at 559 .

2017Because the plaintiff’s expert will be providing expert testimony on the appropriate or relevant standard of practice or care, not an inappropriate or irrelevant standard of practice or care, it follows that the plaintiff’s expert witness 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, if the defendant physician is -4- board certified in that specialty, the plaintiff’s expert must also be board certified in that specialty. [Woodard, 476 Mich at 560 .] “[A] ‘specialty’ is a par

2023As this Court explained in McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 24-25 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), “[MCL 600.2169(1)] 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.) [Woodard, 476 Mich at 558-559 .] The Court also noted that § 2169(1) uses the terms “the same specialty” and “that specialty,” not “the same specialties” or “those specialties.” Woodard, 476 Mich at 559 .

2023As this Court explained in McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 24-25 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), “[MCL 600.2169(1)] 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.) [Woodard, 476 Mich at 558-559 .] The Court also noted that § 2169(1) uses the terms “the same specialty” and “that specialty,” not “the same specialties” or “those specialties.” Woodard, 476 Mich at 559 .