The long-awaited opinion of Horn v. Swofford was just issued by the Michigan Supreme Court on July 25th. The crux of the case was whether a neuroradiologist was qualified to testify against Dr. Swofford who was a diagnostic radiologist reading a brain CT scan. In partially overturning its seminal 2006 case of Woodard v. Custer, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a subspecialty is not considered a specialty for purposes of MCL 600.2169. In other words, with respect to Dr. Swofford, unless an argument could be made under the weaker standards of MCL 600.2169(2)-(3) or MRE 702, a neuroradiology expert could offer standard of care testimony against a diagnostic radiologist, such as Dr. Swofford.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
- More Malpractice Suits: The American Board of Medical Specialties recognizes 40 medical specialties and lists 134 subspecialties. Internal Medicine and Pediatrics eachhave 20 recognized subspecialties! Per Horn v Swofford, it is only the primary specialty that must match. The number of potential experts that plaintiffs can rely on to offer expert testimony has greatly expanded. With more experts who now qualify under our statute, more malpractice cases may be filed with support from experts who do not match a subspecialty defendant. Further, depending on the facts, subspecialists may now be called to support a case against doctors not trained in the subspecialty.
- Less Certainty in Predicting Who is Qualified: Expect different judges to rule differently on who is and is not qualified.
- More Costly Defense: The ruling may result in more discovery and motion-filing, and in turn, may even ultimately affect premiums and coverage.
When the issue of expert qualifications under the statute is now brought up in front of the trial courts, given the weaker standards of MCL 600.2169(2)-(3) and MRE 702, we will likely see inconsistent rulings between jurisdictions and judges necessarily leading to more appeals in the area.
For a more detailed discussion of this case, please click here, or contact FBMJ attorneys Brian Whitelaw or Silvia Alexandria Mansoor from our Medical Malpractice Practice Group.
July 2024
Are Subspecialists considered “Specialists” when Determining Qualification to Testify on Standard of Care? Michigan Supreme Court Releases Opinion that says: NO!
The long-awaited opinion of Horn v. Swofford was just issued by the Michigan Supreme Court on July 25th. The crux of the case was whether a neuroradiologist was qualified to testify against Dr. Swofford who was a diagnostic radiologist reading a brain CT scan. In partially overturning its seminal 2006 case
July 2024
No Cause Verdict for FBMJ Attorneys
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip attorneys Randy Juip and Sarah Cherry recently obtained a Defense Verdict (No Cause) in a medical malpractice jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court. Randy and Sarah represented a major hospital system, an Emergency Medicine physician, and a Physician Assistant in a claim involving a 28-year-old
July 2024
Catherine Rodey Promoted to Senior Associate
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC is pleased to announce the promotion of attorney Catherine Rodey to Senior Associate with the firm. Catherine’s practice involves defending healthcare professionals and organizations in complex medical-malpractice claims, as well as other personal injury and insurance defense claims. In addition, she represents clients involved in
June 2024
Nicholas Tatro Recognized as “Go to Lawyer” for Cannabis Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC is pleased to announce that Nicholas Tatro, a partner of the firm, has been named one of 17 “Go to Lawyers” for Cannabis law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Now in its fifth year, the “Go to Lawyers” program recognizes leading lawyers in particular fields of
May 2024
FBMJ’s Silvia Alexandria Mansoor Elected to OCBA Board of Directors
Congratulations to Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC attorney Silvia Alexandria Mansoor for being elected to the Oakland County Bar Association (OCBA) Board of Directors in the contested May 2024 election. Mansoor will serve a three-year term that runs from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2027. Established in 1934, the OCBA
May 2024
FBMJ Attorneys Successful in MSD of In Pro Per Case
A big shout out to FBMJ attorneys Brian Whitelaw and Cathy Rodey for the dismissal of a very complicated in pro per Complaint against a major healthcare system in the metro-Detroit area. Briefly, the plaintiff sought treatment for an oral infection while pregnant. Oral Surgery was called, and the patient
April 2024
The FTC Issues Non-Compete Ban – What Now?
In Michigan, courts generally presume the legality, validity, and enforceability of contracts. Although noncompete agreements have generally been disfavored by the law, they are enforceable to the extent that they are reasonable in time, geographic distance, and competitive interest. This may all be changing soon though. On April 23, 2024, the
April 2024
Attorney Sarah H. Luchsinger Joins FBMJ
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC is pleased to announce the hiring of attorney Sarah H. Luchsinger as a Senior Associate with the firm. Sarah’s practice primarily involves medical malpractice defense, but also includes nursing home negligence, general negligence, premises negligence, and trucking and auto negligence. In addition, she has experience
April 2024
FBMJ’s Kim Sveska Wins Daubert Challenge
Congratulations to Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip Member, Kim Sveska, for a recent successful Daubert win in a potentially high-damages medical malpractice case. A Daubert win is based on a standard which instructs judges to consider several factors related to expert witness reliability and testimony, as well as the relevance
March 2024
Congratulation to Sarah Cherry on Medical-Malpractice Dismissal
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip attorney, Sarah Cherry, was successful in obtaining another medical malpractice case dismissal on behalf of her hospital client involving an infected implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), which allegedly migrated and perforated a patient’s colon. As required under Michigan law, Plaintiff served a notice of intent related
