See, for example, Zoterell v Repp, 187 Mich. 319, 330 [153 N.W. 692] (1915); Sima v Wright, 268 Mich. 352, 356 [ 256 N.W. 349] (1934); Facer v Lewis, 326 Mich. 702, 713, 714 [ 40 N.W.2d 457] (1950); and Pedler v Emmerson, 331 Mich. 78 (1951)." Frazier v Hurd, 380 Mich. 291, 297; 157 N.W.2d 249 (1968). Frazier permitted a medical doctor to testify as to the standard of care of an osteopathic physician.

We are not persuaded of an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Frazier v Hurd, 380 Mich. 291, 301; 157 N.W.2d 249 (1968); Ferguson v Gonyaw, 64 Mich. App. 685, 695; 236 N.W.2d 543 (1975), lv den 396 Mich. 817 (1976); Haisenleder v Reeder, 114 Mich. App. 258; 318 N.W.2d 634 (1982), lv den 417 Mich. 969 (1983); Higgins v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp, 154 Mich. App. 752; 398 N.W.2d 520 (1986), lv den 428 Mich. 911 (1987). Finally, plaintiffs claim that the court erred in finding that defendant hospital was protected by governmental immunity and in thus granting summary disposition to the hospital.

" Siirila v. Barrios, supra, at 591. Regarding the familiarity of the expert witness with the applicable standards of defendant's school, the Court relied upon its earlier decision in Frazier v Hurd, 380 Mich. 291; 157 N.W.2d 249 (1968): "We do not read our precedents to preclude opinion testimony of compliance or failure of compliance with the standards of a defendant's profession except only from a member of that profession.

In Bryant v Biggs, 331 Mich. 64; 49 N.W.2d 63 (1951), the Supreme Court said that the osteopathic and medical schools of medicine have their own standards and practices and should not be compared. Although the Supreme Court modified the rule in Frazier vHurd, 380 Mich. 291; 157 N.W.2d 249 (1968), it is still the law of the State of Michigan until it is changed by the Supreme Court or the Legislature. As a general rule, practitioners of a school of medicine should be judged by the standards of the school.

Decided March 28, 1967. Rehearing denied April 28, 1967. Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court June 8, 1967. See 379 Mich. 765, 380 Mich. 291. Appeal from Wayne; Burdick (Benjamin D.), J. Submitted Division 1 October 3, 1966, at Detroit.

Accord Cline v. Lund, 31 Cal.App.3d 755, 107 Cal.Rptr. 629 (1973); Radman v. Harold, 279 Md. 167, 367 A.2d 472 (1977). See Harris v. Campbell, 2 Ariz. App. 351, 409 P.2d 67 (1965); Steinberg v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 364 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1966); Frazier v. Hurd, 380 Mich. 291, 157 N.W.2d 249 (1968). The witness may acquire his knowledge of the applicable standard of care through education, experience, observation or association with that specialty.

The testimony was that Dr. Derderian was acting as a consultant to Dr. Bernard. This case is distinguishable factually from the case relied on by plaintiff, Frazier v. Hurd (1968), 380 Mich. 291. In that case one of the doctors assisted the other in performing an operation and was under his direction and control.

If the proffered expert denies knowledge of the standards of a specialized field of medical practice he is disqualified from testifying as an expert. Frazier v. Hurd (1967), 6 Mich. App. 317, affirmed, Frazier v. Hurd (1968), 380 Mich. 291. Therein lies the problem of the plaintiff in a malpractice case against a local physician.