Medical malpractice; Nursing standard of care; Expert witness qualification; MRE 702; MCL 600.2169(2); Local standard of care; Cox v Board of Hosp Managers for City of Flint; Decker v Rochowiak; Directed verdict

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disqualifying plaintiff’s proposed nursing expert and properly granted defendant-nursing home a directed verdict after plaintiff was left without expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care (SOC). Plaintiff’s decedent fell and hit her head while attempting to use the bathroom without assistance during a short-term rehabilitation stay at defendant’s facility and later died. Plaintiff sought to qualify M, an Indiana RN who had worked primarily in pediatric hospital settings and had never worked in a nursing home. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s assertion that expert testimony was unnecessary for some of her theories because “‘[t]he standard of care required of a nurse must be established by expert testimony’” where an ordinary layperson cannot evaluate the skill and competence required. It also held that plaintiff waived her argument for application of a national rather than local SOC. As to M’s qualifications, the court concluded that the trial court erred to the extent it differentiated the applicable standard based simply on whether nurses worked in a hospital or nursing home. The applicable SOC “is based on the locality in which the alleged malpractice occurred, not the type of facility.” But that error did not require reversal because M failed to demonstrate familiarity with the relevant local standard. She conceded that she had “done virtually nothing to familiarize [herself] with the standard and ordinary practices in nursing homes anywhere,” had “virtually no familiarity with nursing practices in nursing homes,” and had no knowledge of nursing-home practices in Michigan. She also did not compare the Indiana communities in which she practiced with Southfield, where defendant’s facility was located. As a result, M “could not establish any familiarity with the local [SOC] and thus could not reliably testify about the [SOC] applicable to this case.” Without qualified expert testimony, plaintiff could not establish her malpractice claim and the directed verdict was proper. Affirmed.