finding that an expert was properly qualified when the expert reviewed written materials that enabled the expert to conclude that “Lansing and Tallahassee had similar populations, a similar scope of medical specialties, similar available procedures, and similar technology”
How later courts described this case
- finding that an expert was properly qualified when the expert reviewed written materials that enabled the expert to conclude that “Lansing and Tallahassee had similar populations, a similar scope of medical specialties, similar available procedures, and similar technology”
- reversing a trial court’s finding that a doctor practicing in Tallahassee, Florida, could not testify to the local standard of care because, in part, he specifically “concluded that Lansing was a similar community to Tallahassee”
- noting that “[a] party offering the testimony of an expert witness must demonstrate the witness’ knowledge of the applicable standard of care”
- expert who neither practiced in the area nor verbally communicated with local physicians, but was an experienced, board-certified physician who reviewed written materials about local hospitals, was qualified to testify about the local standard of care
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Doctoroff, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case. I concur only to reiterate my criticism of the locality rule.
Defendant is a general practitioner in Lansing. Defendant prescribed narcotics to plaintiff Harold Turbin for pain. Plaintiffs allege that defendant prescribed too great a dosage and caused Harold to become addicted to the narcotics. As noted by the majority, plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Peter Macaluso, possesses outstanding credentials and he is clearly qualified to testify regarding the subject of addiction medicine. However, a trial court may not base its decision to allow Dr. Macaluso to testify on his impressive credentials. Instead, the law requires that an expert must indicate his familiarity with the standard of care in the local community. Jalaba v Borovoy, 206 Mich App 17, 20 ; 520 NW2d 349 (1994).
In Birmingham v Vance, 204 Mich App 418 ; 516 NW2d 95 (1994), we noted that the locality rule was a holdover from a time when vast differences existed between medical practice in rural and urban areas. Id. at 422-423 , quoting Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich 576 ; 248 NW2d 171 (1976) (opinion of Williams, J.). Advances in communications systems, computer innovations, and more structured medical organizations have provided once rural disconnected communities with the ability to perform complex medical procedures under more uniform and accurate guidelines. This is particularly true when a general practitioner is providing a *221 service that has become uniform throughout the nation. Birmingham, supra at 424-425 .
Dr. Macaluso testified: "[Q]uality medicine is quality medicine. The practice of quality medicine is in essence one standard.” It is time for the law to acknowledge the truth of his statement. To do otherwise merely excuses medical professionals from using the vast array of tools at their disposal to provide the best care for their patients.