Medical malpractice; Expert testimony on causation; Craig v Oakwood Hosp; Expert-qualification in medical malpractice; MCL 600.2169(2); Law of the case doctrine; Grievance Adm'r v Lopatin

The court held that summary disposition for defendants was proper because plaintiff lacked admissible expert causation testimony and the prior appellate ruling barring that testimony controlled under the law-of-the-case doctrine. Plaintiff alleged a gastroenterologist (Dr. Q) negligently failed to diagnose a sigmoid obstruction and refer him to surgery in 2/16, leading to a 5/16 sigmoidectomy with colostomy, reversal, and complications. After an interlocutory appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s in limine ruling that plaintiff’s gastroenterology expert (Dr. D) was not qualified to opine what “a reasonable surgeon” would have done on referral. The trial court then granted defendants summary disposition. On appeal, the court explained that plaintiff’s “failure-to-refer” theory required expert proof of what a surgeon would have done and therefore needed admissible causation testimony. “[P]laintiff’s theory of ‘but for’ causation requires evidence regarding what a reasonable surgeon would have done had Dr. [Q] made a referral in” 2/16, and thus plaintiff “needed to offer expert testimony opining the necessity of performing surgery earlier than” 5/16. The court further held the earlier interlocutory decision foreclosed relitigation of Dr. D’s qualifications. The prior appeal “specifically resolved that Dr. [D] was not qualified as an expert witness to testify regarding what a surgeon would have done,” and under the law-of-the-case doctrine “the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” Because plaintiff offered no qualified expert on causation after Dr. D’s testimony was excluded, there was no genuine issue of material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Affirmed.