Medical malpractice; Standard of care (SOC); Experts’ qualifications; MCL 600.2169; Woodard v Custer; “Specialist”; Differences between cardiology & interventional cardiology; Estate of Norczyk v Danek; The one most relevant specialty; Estate of Horn v Swofford

The court concluded that “the most relevant specialty” defendant-Dr. McClure was practicing at the time was interventional cardiology, not general cardiology, and that plaintiff’s proffered evidence failed, as a matter of law, to establish her experts’ qualifications to testify as to this SOC. As that was the only evidence by which she could establish the SOC, the proofs necessarily failed as to one element of the alleged cause of action. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition and remanded. McClure “performed ‘invasive vascular procedures on [plaintiff’s] lower extremities.’ Following this procedure, plaintiff experienced complications that ultimately resulted in the amputation of her left leg below the knee.” Defendants argued that the trial court erred by holding that the most relevant specialty here was cardiology and that it instead should have ruled that the most relevant specialty was interventional cardiology. The court held that, when taken together, “Woodard, Norczyk, and Horn establish that only experts who are qualified to testify about the one most relevant specialty can establish the standard of care in a medical malpractice case.” The court determined that the applicable specialty here “was interventional cardiology, and plaintiff failed to establish that either or both of her experts spent a majority of their professional time in this field.” Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by determining that they were qualified to testify as to the relevant SOC. Without any other expert witness available to establish the SOC and its breach, plaintiff’s entire claim failed; thus, the trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition.