 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Giusti v. Mt. Clemens General Hospital12/2/2003
gency room medicine, (3) Dr. Mauskop testified that he would not offer testimony as to the standard of care relative to emergency room physicians or other physicians involved in the original hospitalizations and, thus, was neither qualified nor prepared to testify as to emergency room care rendered to plaintiff, and (4) plaintiff's reliance on Dr. Larkin and Dr. Kaner as experts was unsupported because the record did not ref lect that either physician was qualified under MCL 600.2169 or that either could establish the standard of care or breach of such standard of care. Accordingly, the case was dismissed. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in prohibiting Dr. Baker from testifying in this case because he was qualified under MCL 600.2169 to render expert testimony. We disagree. The qualification of a witness as an expert, and the admissibility of such testimony as evidence, are in the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Mulholland v DEC Int'l Corp , 432 Mich 395, 402; 443 NW2d 340 (1989).
To establish a prima facie case of professional negligence in a medical malpractice action the plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care, breach of that standard, and an injury caused by that breach. See Weymers v Khera , 454 Mich 639, 655; 563 NW2d 647 (1997). Expert testimony is mandatory, with few exceptions. Locke v Pachtman , 446 Mich 216, 223224, 230; 521 NW2d 786 (1994); Carlton v St John Hosp , 182 Mich App 166, 171; 451 NW2d 543 (1989). MCL 600.2169 imposes requirements regarding the qualifications of expertwitnesses who would render such testimony, and provides:
(1) In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional in this state or another state and meets the following criteria:
(b) Subject to subdivision (c), during the year immediately proceeding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, devoted a majority of his or her professional time to either or both of the following:
(i) The active clinical practice of the same health profession in which the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is licensed and, if that party is a specialist, the active clinical practice of that specialty.
(ii) The instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program in the same health profession in which the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is licensed and, if that party is a specialist, an accredited health professional schoolor accredited residency or clinical research program in the same specialty.
In this case, the trial court concluded that Dr. Baker did not devote a majority of his professional time to the active clinical practice of emergency medicine or the instruction of students in emergency medicine. We agree with the trial court.
Dr. Baker testified, in pertinent part, as follows:
Q: And in 1997, which was the time frame in question in this particular case, were you working full-time as an ER physician?
A: In 1997, I was basically half-time in emergency medicine. I was working at MacNeal Hospital, doing eight to ten shifts a month. The full-timers were doing about 14.
Q: When did you - what was the first year you started becoming half-time in ER?
A: Well, in terms of half-time clinical, it was when I left the University of Chicago. I decided I wasn't going to work any more hundred hour weeks
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|