Opinion
SC 163120 COA 352648
05-26-2023
LYNDA DANHOFF and DANIEL DANHOFF, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DANIEL K. FAHIM, M.D. and MICHIGAN HEAD &SPINE INSTITUTE, Defendants-Appellees, And DANIEL K. FAHIM, M.D., PC, KENNETH P. D'ANDREA, D.O., and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, d/b/a BEAUMONT HOSPITAL-ROYAL OAK, Defendants.
Oakland CC: 2018-166129-NH
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On December 7, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether this Court's decisions in Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich. 634 (2010), and Elher v Misra, 499 Mich. 11 (2016), correctly describe the role of supporting literature in determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony on the standard of care in a medical malpractice case; (2) if not, what a plaintiff must demonstrate to support an expert's standard-of-care opinion; and (3) whether the appellants' standard-of-care expert met the standards for determining the reliability of expert testimony and was thus qualified to testify as an expert witness under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955 or whether a Daubert hearing was necessary before making that decision. See Kumho Tire Corp Ltd v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Elher; Edry. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
Amici who appeared at the application stage are invited to file supplemental briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.