Medical malpractice; Expert-qualification matching; MCL 600.2169; Stokes v Swofford; Summary disposition on causation; Skinner v Square D Co; Direct institutional liability; Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr; Daubert/MRE 702 reliability; Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc

The court held that the trial court properly refused to strike plaintiff’s neurology expert, correctly denied summary disposition as to causation and on direct-liability claims, and properly declined to hold a Daubert hearing. It also denied a cross-appeal. Applying Stokes, the court explained that “the ‘matching’ required by MCL 600.2169(1)(b) is limited to general board specialties,” and because both physicians were board-certified in neurology, the expert met “the initial statutory requirement.” On causation, the record presented a triable dispute: plaintiff’s experts opined that excessively high-dose steroids and delayed or inappropriate antibiotics left the decedent ventilator-dependent and that, “more likely than not, had he been properly treated, he would still be alive.” The court rejected defense assertions that the opinions were legally insufficient, agreeing with the trial judge “that a genuine issue of material fact” existed as to causation. Proximate cause is for the jury unless reasonable minds could not differ. As to direct liability, an expert’s affidavit and testimony supported claims that defendants failed to “select, employ, train and monitor” staff and to “ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are adopted and followed.” As to Daubert, defendants offered no showing that the opinions lacked a reliable foundation under MRE 702. Perceived inconsistencies were fit for cross-examination, not exclusion. Affirmed.