Medical malpractice; Cox v Hartman; Expert testimony; Elher v Misra; Proximate cause; MCL 600.2912a(2); O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr; Distinguishing Martin v Ledingham & Ykimoff v Foote Mem’l Hosp; Effect of speculation; Craig v Oakwood Hosp; Whether a Daubert hearing was necessary; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants-Dr. Clark and his practice summary disposition of plaintiff-PR’s medical malpractice action. Plaintiff sued defendants, asserting one count of medical malpractice against Dr. Clark and one count of vicarious liability against his practice, alleging plaintiff’s decedent (W) would not have suffered a stroke had Dr. Clark fulfilled his duties under the standard of care. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff's  argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendants because his expert’s (F) deposition testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. It noted that the “speculative nature of plaintiff’s causation evidence was not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” In addition, although defendants argued in their motion for summary disposition that there was “insufficient evidence that a carotid artery blockage had caused the stroke, the trial court granted summary disposition on the basis of the fact” that the vascular surgeon had not ordered immediate surgery after evaluating W. As such, any error in the trial court’s reference to F’s testimony was harmless and did not warrant reversal. Finally, the court found that a Daubert hearing was unnecessary. Affirmed.