discussing the differing statutory standards governing, respectively, the admission of an expert's standard-of-care testimony at trial and the adequacy of an expert's affidavit of merit
How later courts described this case
- discussing the differing statutory standards governing, respectively, the admission of an expert's standard-of-care testimony at trial and the adequacy of an expert's affidavit of merit
- explaining that counsel’s reasonable belief regarding an expert’s qualification does not control whether the expert can testify at trial
- addressing identical language in MCL 600.2912d
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur with the majority that plaintiffs counsel had a reasonable belief that plaintiffs expert met the requirements for filing an affidavit of merit under MCL 600.2912d. However, I write separately because I do not believe that MCL 600.2169 requires an expert witness to match board certifications in all cases. 1 A proper reading of the statute indicates that board certifications and specialties must match only when the board certification or specialty is relevant to the alleged malpractice at issue. Therefore, I concur with the result reached in this case.
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.
I still strongly believe that MCL 600.2169 is unconstitutional, as discussed in my dissent in McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 37-72; 597 NW2d 148 (1999).