# Grossman v. Brown

> Michigan Supreme Court · July 20, 2004 · 470 Mich. 593

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504419

## Case

- **Full name:** Grossman v. Brown
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 20, 2004
- **Citations:** 470 Mich. 593; 685 N.W.2d 198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanagh
- **Judges:** Weaver, Young, Markman, Taylor, Kelly, Cavanagh
- **Cited by:** 63 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504419

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504419. Public record. Not legal advice.