Medical malpractice; Elher v. Misra; Standard of care; MCL 600.2912a; Principle that podiatrists are general practitioners & subject to the local community standard of care; Jalaba v. Borovoy; Expert testimony; MRE 702; MCL 600.2169; MCL 600.2955; MRE 104(a); Turbin v. Graesser; Bahr v. HarperGrace Hosps.; Decker v. Rochowiak; The two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions; MCL 600.5805(8); Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc.; Tolling; MCL 600.2912b(1); MCL 600.5856(c); Kirkaldy v. Rim; Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp.; Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of MI; Principle that a plaintiff’s failure to support his or her medical malpractice claim with a qualified expert is grounds for dismissal with prejudice; Woodard v. Custer

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants-podiatrist (Seiler) and his practice on plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim. Plaintiff sued defendants claiming Seiler’s failure to diagnose his osteomyelitis was malpractice that resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. The trial court struck plaintiff’s expert witness and dismissed his claim. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a national standard of care should have applied, noting the cases he cited do not have any precedential authority, and “podiatrists have long been subject to only the local standard of care because they are general practitioners.” As such, “the local standard of care for a podiatrist” applied in this case. It also rejected his claim that his expert should have been qualified as an expert witness because he knew the local standard of care. The trial court was not satisfied that the expert was familiar with the local area and thus found he was not qualified to be an expert in this case. While the court was inclined to disagree with the trial court’s conclusion, it did not believe the trial court made an error of law or that its decision was outside the range of principled outcomes. Finally, it rejected his contention that the trial court erred by dismissing his claim with prejudice. “[T]he trial court granted summary disposition to defendants because plaintiff failed to support his claim with a qualified expert.” Affirmed.