Medical malpractice; Expert testimony; MRE 702; MCL 600.2955; MCL 600.2169; Danhoff v Fahim; Standard of care; Knee replacement; Popliteal artery injury; “Whittling technique”; “Plunging technique”; Summary disposition

The court held that the trial court erred by excluding plaintiff’s standard-of-care expert and granting defendants summary disposition in this medical-malpractice action. Plaintiff alleged defendant-doctor damaged her popliteal artery during knee replacement surgery. The trial court excluded her expert, Dr. W, as unreliable. The court first held that the expert’s testimony was admissible under MRE 702. Although Dr. W did not rely on medical literature, the court noted under Danhoff that a lack of supporting literature is “important but not dispositive.” The court reasoned that his opinion was based on more than injury alone, including the severity of the injury, the absence of evidence that the artery itself had abnormal anatomy, and his testimony that the standard of care required use of a whittling technique rather than a plunging technique. The court also emphasized that defendants’ expert agreed that a plunging technique would breach the standard of care, while defendant testified that his saw technique was “a little bit of both.” Thus, Dr. W’s opinion on the plunging technique was “relevant and reliable.” The court further held that summary disposition was improper because, with the expert testimony admissible, plaintiff had evidence supporting a prima facie malpractice claim and there was “a genuine issue of material fact” as to what technique defendant used and whether abnormal anatomy affected the surgery. Reversed and remanded.