Medical malpractice; Expert testimony; MCL 600.2955; MRE 702 & 703; Standard of care (SOC); A patient’s right to refuse anesthesia & a doctor’s obligation to honor the patient’s directive; In re Rosebush; An expert’s opinion based on assumptions not based on record evidence; Badalamenti v William Beaumont Hosp-Troy; Deposition testimony; A doctor’s statements in treatment notes; Requirements for a party to be bound by a statement; Dykes v William Beaumont Hosp

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that plaintiff’s expert’s (L) opinion testimony did not meet MRE 702 and 703’s requirements, and that it properly considered defendant-doctor’s (Albers) deposition testimony because it did not irreconcilably conflict with her treatment notes. Further, no genuine issue of material fact existed based on the decedent’s (Hal) medical records, the treatment notes, and Albers’s deposition testimony. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. L testified that the SOC “for laceration wound management required x-raying the wound and thoroughly cleansing it with adequate liquid under pressure. The record” showed that L based “his opinions on his belief that Hal’s deep wound could not have been adequately cleansed, irrigated, and probed because Hal declined anesthesia and Dr. Albers did not administer any despite his refusal.” While L suggested that “Albers should have administered anesthesia or a sedative despite Hal’s refusal[,]” the court noted that Hal “had the right to decline the administration of anesthesia and Dr. Albers had the obligation to honor his directive.” The record also did not support L’s assumption “that Hal must have withdrawn from noxious stimuli and pain associated with irrigating and probing his wound making it impossible for Dr. Albers to cleanse it.” That assumption led to L’s additional assumption that “Albers failed to adequately irrigate and probe the wound to reveal and remove a suspected foreign body.” However, it could not reasonably be inferred from the medical records and “treatment notes that Hal recoiled or withdrew from Dr. Albers’s efforts and precluded her from adequately cleansing, probing, inspecting, or suturing his wound.” The trial court did not err in determining that L based his SOC opinions on speculation, and thus, they were inadmissible. It properly excluded L’s “opinion testimony and ruled that plaintiff could not establish her prima facie case because she could not rely on” L’s speculative SOC opinions.