Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955 (2026)

Scientific or expert opinion or evidence; admissibility.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961

Act 236 of 1961

600.2955 Scientific or expert opinion or evidence; admissibility.

Sec. 2955.

(1) In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property, a scientific opinion rendered by an otherwise qualified expert is not admissible unless the court determines that the opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact. In making that determination, the court shall examine the opinion and the basis for the opinion, which basis includes the facts, technique, methodology, and reasoning relied on by the expert, and shall consider all of the following factors:

(a) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to scientific testing and replication.

(b) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to peer review publication.

(c) The existence and maintenance of generally accepted standards governing the application and interpretation of a methodology or technique and whether the opinion and its basis are consistent with those standards.

(d) The known or potential error rate of the opinion and its basis.

(e) The degree to which the opinion and its basis are generally accepted within the relevant expert community. As used in this subdivision, "relevant expert community" means individuals who are knowledgeable in the field of study and are gainfully employed applying that knowledge on the free market.

(f) Whether the basis for the opinion is reliable and whether experts in that field would rely on the same basis to reach the type of opinion being proffered.

(g) Whether the opinion or methodology is relied upon by experts outside of the context of litigation.

(2) A novel methodology or form of scientific evidence may be admitted into evidence only if its proponent establishes that it has achieved general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in the field.

(3) In an action alleging medical malpractice, the provisions of this section are in addition to, and do not otherwise affect, the criteria for expert testimony provided in section 2169.

History: Add. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 151 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Elher v. Misra, 878 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elher v. Misra, 878 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 35× “Defendants moved to exclude plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony on the ground that, because it was not supported by peer-reviewed literature or the opinions of other physicians, it did not meet the standards for reliability set forth in MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955. The court,…”

Edry v. Adelman, 786 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 32× “In performing its gatekeeping role, a trial court is required to consider all factors enumerated in MCL 600.2955 before it strikes an expert witness, and it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to do so.”

Johanna Woodard v. Univ. of Mich Med. Ctr, 476 Mich. 545 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 17× “Typically, the trial court allows the parties to 14 The concurrence by Chief Justice Taylor seems to believe that this would not be a problem because MCL 600.2955 precludes opinion testimony that is not based on “proven theories and methodologies.”

Chapin v. a & L PARTS, INC., 732 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 18× “An evidentiary hearing under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955 is merely a threshold inquiry to ensure that the trier of fact is not called on to rely in whole or in part on an expert opinion that is only masquerading as science.”

Elher v. Misra, 870 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18× “At issue in this medical malpractice case is how those standards apply to a difference of opinion among highly qualified experts concerning whether a surgical error constitutes a violation of the standard of care.”

Ykimoff v. W a Foote Mem'l Hosp., 776 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Flanigan's opinion did not meet the reliability criteria of MCL 600.2955 because he did not cite or rely on professional treatises or publications.”

Gonzalez v. St John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 739 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Our Supreme Court discussed this requirement in a recent remand order 3 in Clerc v Chippewa Co War Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 1067 (2007): The proponent of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case must satisfy the court that the expert is qualified under MRE 702, MCL 600.2955 and…”

Greathouse v. Rhodes, 618 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “2169(l)(a) to testify regarding the standard *223 of care, and (2) denying her request to use learned treatises to question her expert witnesses on direct-examination in order to establish that their opinions were supported by “peer review publications” and met other…”

Clerc v. Chippewa Cnty. War Mem'l Hosp., 729 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 5× “The proponent of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case must satisfy the court that the expert is qualified under MRE 702, MCL 600.2955 and MCL 600.2169. The court's gatekeeper role under MRE 702 mandates a searching inquiry, not just of the data underlying expert…”

SPECT Imaging, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 633 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “During discovery, defendants moved for an eviden-tiary hearing, seeking to determine whether evidence of spect imaging, which defendants claimed was a “novel scientific procedure” was admissible pursuant to MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955. For reasons unclear from the record, the trial…”

Lynda Danhoff v. Daniel K Fahim Md (Mich. 2024). · cites it 41× “In an opinion by Justice BOLDEN, joined by Chief Justice CLEMENT and Justices BERNSTEIN, CAVANAGH, and WELCH, the Supreme Court held: The trial court abused its discretion by inadequately assessing the reliability of a standard- of-care expert witness without appropriately…”

Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 643 N.W.2d 580 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 600.2955(1), which went into effect March 28, 1996, "in an apparent effort to codify the United States Supreme Court's holding in Daubert [,supra at 579 , 113 S.”

Show all 151 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955(1) — 87 cases

Chapin v. a & L PARTS, INC., 732 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “An evidentiary hearing under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955 is merely a threshold inquiry to ensure that the trier of fact is not called on to rely in whole or in part on an expert opinion that is only masquerading as science.”

Elher v. Misra, 878 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. 2016). “Defendants moved to exclude plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony on the ground that, because it was not supported by peer-reviewed literature or the opinions of other physicians, it did not meet the standards for reliability set forth in MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955. The court,…”

Edry v. Adelman, 786 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. 2010). “In performing its gatekeeping role, a trial court is required to consider all factors enumerated in MCL 600.2955 before it strikes an expert witness, and it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to do so.”

Greathouse v. Rhodes, 618 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “2169(l)(a) to testify regarding the standard *223 of care, and (2) denying her request to use learned treatises to question her expert witnesses on direct-examination in order to establish that their opinions were supported by “peer review publications” and met other…”

Elher v. Misra, 870 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “At issue in this medical malpractice case is how those standards apply to a difference of opinion among highly qualified experts concerning whether a surgical error constitutes a violation of the standard of care.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955(1)(a) — 17 cases

Raquel Robelin v. Spectrum Health Hospitals (Mich. 2010).

Shante Hooks v. Lorenzo Ferguson Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Kathleen Peyton v. Novi Internal Med. & Pediatrics (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955(1)(a)(g) — 1 case

Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955(1)(b) — 6 cases

Raquel Robelin v. Spectrum Health Hospitals (Mich. 2010).

Shante Hooks v. Lorenzo Ferguson Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Linda Wendt v. Dr Jill Bowerman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Rita Walsh v. Marc Sakwa Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Rita Walsh v. Marc Sakwa Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955(1)(c) — 6 cases