Estate of Linda Roberdeaux v. Evangelical Homes of Michigan ( 2017 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 30, 2017 Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice
154832 Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
In re Estate of LINDA ROBERDEAUX. Joan L. Larsen
_________________________________________ Kurtis T. Wilder,
Justices
DENNIS ROBERDEAUX, SR., Personal
Representative,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v SC: 154832
COA: 323802
Washtenaw CC: 13-000675-NH
EVANGELICAL HOMES OF MICHIGAN,
d/b/a EVANGELICAL HOME-SALINE,
and MICHIGAN SPORTS MEDICINE &
ORTHOPEDIC CENTER,
Defendants,
and
WASHTENAW MEDICINE, P.C., d/b/a
WASHTENAW INTERNAL MEDICINE
ASSOCIATES, CHERYL A. HUCKINS,
M.D., and MARK A. KELLEY, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2016
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, C.J. (dissenting.)
I would reverse for the reasons set forth by Judge SERVITTO in her Court of
Appeals dissent. In re Roberdeaux Estate, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
issued October 18, 2016 (Docket No. 323802) (SERVITTO, J., dissenting). A “standard of
care” expert in a medical malpractice action must have “devoted a majority of his or her
professional time to . . . [t]he active clinical practice of the same health profession in
which the party . . . on whose behalf the testimony is offered” practices. MCL
2
600.2169(1)(b)(i). In Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich. 545, 560 (2006), this Court held that
an expert “must match the one most relevant standard of practice or care—the specialty
engaged in by the defendant physician during the course of the alleged malpractice . . . .”
And in Woodard’s companion case, Hamilton v Kuligowski, we struck plaintiff’s expert’s
testimony when defendant was a specialist in internal medicine and plaintiff’s expert
specialized in infectious diseases, a subspecialty of internal medicine. Id. at 577-578.
Largely the same reasoning applies here. Defendant practiced general internal medicine,
while her expert practiced geriatrics, a subspecialty of internal medicine. Under
Woodard and Hamilton, the testimony of defendant’s expert should not have been
admitted.
BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam
Bernstein Law Firm.
WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 30, 2017
d0627
Clerk