Medical malpractice; Danhoff v Fahim; Expert testimony; MRE 702; MCL 600.2955(1); Reliability; Edry v Adelman; Damages; Loss of future earnings & services under the Wrongful Death Act (WDA); MCL 600.2921; MCL 600.2922(6); Denney v Kent Cnty Rd Comm’n; Daher v Prime Healthcare Servs-Garden City, LLC; A trial court’s discretion as to new evidence in a motion for reconsideration; Yoost v Caspari

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court erred in “failing to grant defendants’ partial motion for partial summary disposition related to plaintiff’s claims of loss of financial support and services.” It remanded for the trial court to reconsider the issues as to expert testimony on causation. Plaintiff sued defendants for medical malpractice due to the death of the decedent following her birth by cesarean section (C-section). Defendants moved for partial summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims related to the timing of the C-section on the basis that there were no scientific or factual bases for the causation opinions of plaintiff’s experts. They also moved for summary disposition of the claims of loss of financial support and services The trial court found “plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence regarding proximate cause for the issue of whether the prolonged labor caused the excessive uterine tone and contributed to” the decedent’s injuries. In a prior appeal, the court reversed on the basis that the earning potential was too speculative, and also held that the trial court did not err by finding that the proffered expert testimonies were admissible. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration of these issues in light of Daher. On remand, the court found that the “WDA provides for ‘damages for the loss of financial support,’ MCL 600.2922(6), and there is no other provision allowing for the recovery of household services without such a showing of support.” As to the expert testimony, the trial court’s “limited consideration of the proposed testimony under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955 requires remand for” a determination as to “whether the proposed opinions were reliable.” The court noted that a “trial court has discretion to decline to consider new evidence submitted with a motion for reconsideration that could have been presented with the initial motion.” However, such materials may “be relevant on remand, with the trial court more properly positioned to make factual findings regarding the reliability of the expert opinions under the proper standards. On remand, the trial court must reexamine the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony under MCL 600.2955 and MRE 702, and in light of Danhoff, to determine whether it can meet the standard of reliability despite the lack of scientific research.” If it finds, “after considering all of the appropriate factors, that the opinions are reliable and admissible, it must then determine whether plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine question of material fact on causation.” Reversed and remanded.