Siirila v. Barrios

59 Citing cases

  1. Keefer v. C R Bard, Inc.

    110 Mich. App. 563 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 14 times
    In Keefer v C R Bard, Inc, 110 Mich. App. 563; 313 N.W.2d 151 (1981), the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of a catheter, the nurse who inserted the catheter in the plaintiff's arm, and the hospital, for injuries sustained when the catheter broke in her arm and traveled to her lung. At trial, counsel for the defendant hospital and the nurse asked the administrator of the hospital what type of employee he considered the nurse to be. Keefer, supra, p 574.

    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.

  2. Croda v. Sarnacki

    307 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 12 times
    In Croda, the amount of settlement with the other defendants was extremely small, while in the instant case the amount was relatively large; therefore the possibility for prejudice took a different form, that is the jury in Croda might have concluded that plaintiff's claim was of dubious validity, given the low amount of the other settlement. 106 Mich. App. 62.

    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.

  3. LeBlanc v. Lentini

    82 Mich. App. 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 15 times
    In LeBlanc, the plaintiff accused the defendant doctor of committing medical malpractice by performing unnecessary surgery to treat an esophageal hiatus hernia and duodenal ulcer when more conservative treatment was warranted, failing to adequately advise the plaintiff before securing his consent for surgery, leaving a sponge inside the plaintiff following the surgery, and failing to properly close the incision after performing a second surgery to remove the sponge.

    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."

  4. Callahan v. Beaumont Hospital

    254 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    In Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital, 400 Mich. 177, 254 N.W.2d 31 (1977), it was stated that the test of the qualification of a physician to testify in a malpractice case as an expert is whether he knows "standard of care about which he is to testify;" whether he has ever practiced in the Defendants' geographical area is irrelevant.

    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.

  5. Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital Managers

    467 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2002)   Cited 159 times
    Holding MCL 600.2912a does not apply to nurses

    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:

  6. Bahr v. Harper-Grace Hospitals

    448 Mich. 135 (Mich. 1995)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that an expert who did not explicitly testify that he was familiar with the standard of care in the Detroit metropolitan area was nonetheless qualified to testify regarding the applicable standard of care because he had "practice experience in areas [Philadelphia] indisputably comparable"

    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).

  7. Mulholland v. DEC International Corp.

    432 Mich. 395 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that when a plaintiff relies upon the testimony of an expert to prove factual causation, " 'there must be facts in evidence to support the opinion testimony of an expert' "

    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.

  8. McLean v. Hunter

    495 So. 2d 1298 (La. 1986)   Cited 240 times
    Applying the foregoing principle to a jury's findings

    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.

  9. People v. Whitfield

    425 Mich. 116 (Mich. 1986)   Cited 74 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where upon defense counsel's questioning, the victim extolled defendant's virtue as a peaceable person and unwittingly furnished the foundation for the prosecutor to acquaint the jury with matters which otherwise could not be admitted into evidence

    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.

  10. Rice v. Jaskolski

    412 Mich. 206 (Mich. 1981)   Cited 12 times
    Reversing grant of directed verdict for defendant because defendant-dentist's own testimony at trial established standard of care

    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.