Medical malpractice; Whether a party-physician is an expert witness under MCL 600.2169(1); Rock v Crocker; Standard of care (SOC); MCL 600.2169(1)(b); Whether precluding him or her from offering testimony about the applicable SOC would prevent him or her from being able to present an adequate defense

The court held that MCL 600.2169(1) applied to defendant-doctor and that he did not qualify under MCL 600.2169(1)(b) to testify as to the applicable SOC. Also, this did not prevent him from adequately defending himself. Plaintiff sued defendant (who had board-certified specialties in cardiology and internal medicine) for medical malpractice after plaintiff’s decedent died from a pulmonary embolism while under defendant’s care. On appeal, defendant argued that “MCL 600.2169(1) does not apply to a party-physician and if it does, the statute prevents him from presenting an adequate defense.” He first argued that he was “qualified to testify on his own behalf under MCL 600.2169(1) because the qualifications of a proposed expert are determined on the basis of the qualifications of the defendant. Although the experience of an expert witness under MCL 600.2169(1)(a) directly corresponds to the experience of the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered, this argument ignores the additional requirements of MCL 600.2169(1)(b), which requires that the specialist must have devoted a majority of his or her professional time to active clinical practice or instruction of the specialty. Defendant testified that he practiced the majority of the time within the year immediately preceding the alleged occurrence of malpractice in his cardiology specialty, not internal medicine.” Thus, the court held that he did not qualify under MCL 600.2169(1)(b). Defendant next argued that a party-physician is not an expert witness under MCL 600.2169(1). But the court noted that nowhere in MCL 600.2169 “does the Legislature distinguish a party witness from a nonparty witness.” The court pointed “out that MCL 600.2169(1) very specifically directs that ‘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 specified statutory] criteria.’ If the Legislature intended to make a specific exception for a party-physician who chooses to testify as an expert witness regarding the applicable [SOC], it could have done so, but has not.”