Medical malpractice; Motion for new trial; Great weight of the evidence; MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e); Conflicting expert testimony; Witness credibility

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial because competent evidence supported the jury’s no-cause verdict in his medical-malpractice action. Plaintiff underwent a triple arthrodesis performed by defendant-podiatrist and later sued, alleging the surgery was premature and negligently performed. Plaintiff’s expert testified that defendant improperly placed hardware in his foot, causing a nonunion and continuing pain. Defendants presented contrary expert testimony that the surgery was successful. On appeal, plaintiff argued that his expert’s testimony concerning placement of the screws was unrebutted and the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The court disagreed, noting that defendants’ expert “directly discussed the screws and opined that a joint with two screws in it cannot move, even with a partial union.” Defendant also testified that he had “complied with the standard of care with the treatment options, with the care, with the surgery, with the result of the surgery, everything that I could control did well.” Further, defendants’ expert relied on postoperative imaging showing improved alignment and structure and opined that the surgery was successful. Plaintiff’s expert also acknowledged that hardware removal was common even where fusion occurred and “never explained the reason why” plaintiff’s other reported pain could have resulted from the arthrodesis. His testimony presented additional credibility concerns because he initially relied on an x-ray of the wrong foot, had not reviewed certain medical records, and never examined plaintiff. Thus, although “the experts disagreed on the ultimate issue of breach, the jury heard all the testimony and decided to credit defendants’ experts.” Affirmed.