Medical malpractice; Striking plaintiff’s standard of care (SOC) expert; Woodard v. Custer; Gonzalez v. St. John Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (On Reconsideration); Edry v. Adelman; MRE 702; MCL 600.2169; MCL 600.2955; Clerc v. Chippewa Cnty. War Mem’l Hosp.; MCL 600.2169(1)-(3); Abandoned claim of error; Mate v. Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co.; MCL 600.2955(1); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.; Greathouse v. Rhodes; Halloran v. Bhan; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Distinguishing Albro v. Drayer; Dismissal of the complaint; West v. General Motors Corp.; Carlton v. St. John Hosp.; Spires v. Bergman; Young v. Oakland Gen. Hosp.; Admissions in a deposition; Stefan v. White; Dykes v. William Beaumont Hosp.; Motion to extend discovery & add an expert witness; Tisbury v. Armstrong

Holding that the record supported the trial court’s reasonable and principled determination that Dr. K lacked sufficient “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” as to performing the canaloplasty procedure to render reliable his opinion on the SOC, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking K as plaintiffs’ sole SOC expert. Defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that K was not qualified to render expert testimony as to the SOC under the criteria of MCL 600.2169(2) and (3). The trial court properly considered K’s lack of education, professional training, and experience when deciding that he could not reliably testify as to the SOC requisite for performing a canaloplasty. The record showed that K had never performed a canaloplasty; his last educational experience as to the procedure “was over 27 years earlier during his residency when he observed the procedure being performed,” and K also “admitted he did not have the requisite training or experience to perform a canaloplasty.” Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in ruling that K was not qualified as a SOC expert under MRE 702. However, K’s own testimony showed that has never performed a canaloplasty; his last educational experience as to the procedure was observing it being performed over 27 years earlier, and he admitted that he lacked the requisite training or experience to perform the procedure. Further, plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of showing that K had an adequate foundation for his professed knowledge as to the SOC relating to the performance of a canaloplasty “to render his proposed opinion testimony reliable and admissible.” Under the circumstances, the trial court’s ruling that K was not qualified to provide reliable expert opinion testimony as to the SOC “was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes;” thus, it was not an abuse of discretion. Further, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking K as plaintiffs’ SOC expert, it also properly dismissed the complaint. Affirmed.