defendant’s expert on catheters properly prohibited from expressing an opinion with respect to the absence of blood on a catheter needle in the absence of evidence of his ability to recognize or identify blood
How later courts described this case
- defendant’s expert on catheters properly prohibited from expressing an opinion with respect to the absence of blood on a catheter needle in the absence of evidence of his ability to recognize or identify blood
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bashara, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion that reversal is not required. However, I write separately because I find error in two rulings of the trial court.
*587 First, Dr. Seigner’s qualification as an expert in the mechanical operation and use of catheters was erroneous. Dr. Seigner testified that insertion of catheters was a nursing function. There is no evidence that Dr. Seigner possessed the necessary learning, knowledge, skill or practical knowledge that would allow him to testify as to what generally causes a severed catheter. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich 576, 591 ; 248 NW2d 171 (1976). Nor was Dr. Seigner qualified to testify concerning the mechanical functioning of the catheter, there being no evidence that he possessed knowledge in that area either through personal training or extensive experience.
Dr. Seigner was properly allowed to testify concerning the events surrounding the accident of which he was personally aware. However, the court erred in allowing him to speculate as to the cause of the accident, which he did not see, since he was not an expert nor an eyewitness.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the testimony of the hospital administrator, Mr. Korte, was relevant and properly admitted at trial. At issue in this case was whether defendant Hoose was negligent in inserting the catheter into plaintiffs arm. Her general reputation as a nurse was not relevant to the controversy. Furthermore, by allowing Korte to testify that a complaint had not been lodged against Hoose in the nine years of her employment, the trial court allowed the jury to improperly infer that she had not been negligent in this instance. Such an inference is clearly improper. MRE 404(a), Adams v Elseffer, 132 Mich 100 ; 92 NW 772 (1902), McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich App 500, 510-512 ; 233 NW2d 811 (1975). Where the opposing parties did not bring general reputation into issue, it was error to *588 allow Hoose to bolster her credibility by introducing the testimony of Korte.
Where the Court of Appeals finds that the trial court clearly erred in admitting or excluding evidence, the judgment will not be set aside "unless refusal to take such action appears * * * inconsistent with substantial justice”. GCR 1963, 529.1. Upon careful review of all the evidence, it is apparent that the verdict would have been the same regardless of these errors. Miskiewicz v Smo-lenski, 249 Mich 63 ; 227 NW 789 (1929), Moskalik v Dunn, 392 Mich 583 ; 221 NW2d 313 (1974). Under these circumstances, I concur in the majority holding affirming the judgment.