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
WEAVER, J.
(concurring in result only). I concur with the majority only in its conclusion that, in this case, plaintiffs attorney had a reasonable belief that plaintiffs medical expert met the requirements for filing an affidavit of merit under MCL 600.2912d. I write separately to clarify, as I explain in my dissenting opinion in Halloran v Bhan, 470 Mich 572 ; 683 NW2d 129 (2004) (WEAVER, J. dissenting), that MCL 600.2169 requires that a standard-of-care expert’s board certifications and specialties match those of the defendant only where the specialty or board certification is appropriate for (correct for the purpose of explaining) the standard of care to which the expert will be testifying in the case.