A trial judge has great discretion in admitting expert testimony in the form of a conclusion, and the judge's exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Hughes v Allis-Chalmers Corp, 96 Mich. App. 175; 292 N.W.2d 514 (1980), Johnson v Detroit, 79 Mich. App. 295; 261 N.W.2d 295 (1977). It is the duty of the party offering the expert to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the expert's testimony. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976). Defendant Bard does not question the qualifications of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Seigner, to testify as an expert concerning medical matters.
However, it is well-established that the expert witness must possess the necessary learning, knowledge, skill or practical experience that would enable him to competently testify concerning that area of medicine. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 591; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976). It is therefore clear that plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Miller, was not required to be a gynecologist or urologist in order to qualify as an expert witness.
Specialists are held to the degree of skill and knowledge possessed by physicians who are specialists in the light of present day scientific knowledge with no geographical limitations, while general practitioners are held to the standard of professional competence of general practitioners existing in their local community or in similar communities in light of the state of the art. In his "to concur" opinion in Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 634; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976), Justice WILLIAMS argued for a modified rule and concluded: "We would hold that the test in Michigan henceforth shall be that a general practitioner is under duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner of the same class, acting under the same or similar circumstances, having in mind (a) the state of the art for the particular medical situation, (b) whether a specialist should reasonably have been consulted and (c) such local factors as might be pertinent."
Plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal, but Dr. Feldstein did not. On August 18, 1976, this Court ordered the instant case to be held in abeyance pending a decision in Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976). We now, in lieu of leave to appeal, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), affirm the Court of Appeals judgment, but address one aspect of the Court's opinion.
2912a, I would conclude that a nurse may be either, depending on the level of training and expertise the job requires. In his concurring opinion in Siirila v. Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 625-630; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976), Justice Williams argued for abandonment of the locality rule in favor of a national standard of care for all medical caregivers. He urged local practice as but one consideration in evaluating the standard of care. MCL 600.2912a(1) provides, in relevant part:
We read this dicta as an instruction to counsel on how to qualify an expert, and not as a limitation on the judge's exercise of discretion or as controlling review by an appellate court.Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 591; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976); see also Mulholland v DEC Int'l, 432 Mich. 395, 402; 443 N.W.2d 340 (1989); 2 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 561, pp 756-759.Sampson v Veenboer, 252 Mich. 660, 666-667; 234 N.W. 170 (1931).
The decision to qualify a witness as an expert is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, and its decision is not to be reversed absent abuse of discretion. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 591; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976); McEwen v Bigelow, 40 Mich. 215, 217 (1879). In this case, Beale, a milking-management consultant, was called by plaintiffs as a witness and asked questions concerning his extensive experience with milking machines.
Evans, 112 Cal.Rptr. at 240, 241 (citations omitted). A similar decision was reached by the Michigan Supreme Court in Siirila v. Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976). In this case, a medical malpractice suit was brought against a general practitioner and a hospital.
MRE 702; MRE 104(a). The determination of whether a witness is an "expert" is within the discretion of the trial court, Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576, 591; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976), and the decision generally is not reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. In this case, expert testimony concerning the transmission of gonorrhea was clearly of potential assistance in understanding the evidence.
This testimony was sufficient to withstand in part the directed verdict he sought at the close of the plaintiffs' case. See also Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich. 576; 248 N.W.2d 171 (1976). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for trial on the first count of the plaintiffs' complaint.