Medical malpractice; Ostensible agency relationship; Grewe v Mt Clemens Gen Hosp; Expert witness; MCL 600.2169(1)(b)(i); “Specialist”; Certified Emergency Medicine Specialists (CEMS)

The court held that (1) “the trial court wrongly determined plaintiff failed to show the existence of an ostensible agency relationship” and (2) that his proposed expert witness (a nurse practitioner specializing in wound care) “was not disqualified under MCL 600.2169(1)(b)(i).” Thus, the court reversed summary disposition for defendants and remanded. Plaintiff alleged that defendant-Koster (a nurse practitioner and independent contractor employed by defendant-CEMS) failed to appropriately treat his injury. He further claimed that CEMS and defendant-Metropolitan Health (Metro Health) were vicariously liable. Plaintiff argued the trial court erred when it granted Metro Health “summary disposition because there was a factual question whether an ostensible agency relationship existed between Koster and Metro Health.” The court concluded that summary “disposition was inappropriate because plaintiff’s evidence demonstrated his reasonable belief that Koster was a Metro Health employee, and Metro Health failed to present evidence showing it dispelled this belief.” The court also noted that the “trial court granted summary disposition to the CEMS defendants because plaintiff’s proposed expert specialized in wound care and not general-practice medicine. But . . . the specialist requirement of MCL 600.2169(1)(b)(i) does not apply to nurse practitioners. Thus, to be qualified as a nurse practitioner expert witness under MCL 600.2169(1)(b)(i), the plaintiff need only show that the proposed witness engaged in ‘[t]he active clinical practice of the same health profession in which the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is licensed.’” In this case, “both Koster and the proposed expert were nurse practitioners engaged in the active clinical practice of nursing. Consequently, the trial court erred when it concluded the proposed expert was not qualified under MCL 600.2169(1)(b)(i).”