Expert witnesses must practice same specialty as defendant physicians

Michigan law is clear. Expert witnesses must spend most of their time practicing in the same area of ​​expertise as the doctor who is testifying, the doctor told the Michigan Supreme Court.

In Amicus Brief, Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Associations The Michigan Medical Society (MSMS) has asked the state’s Supreme Court to deny plaintiffs’ requests to consider hearing cases that challenge established legislation and common law. .

In 1993, the Michigan legislature rewrote the 1986 law to require expert witnesses to practice in the same area of ​​expertise as the defendant, be certified by a committee in the same area of ​​expertise as the defendant, and spend most of their time as experts. Clarified that it must be devoted to the same area of ​​expertise as the defendant. The year before the misconduct was discovered.

And almost 15 years ago, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that professionals must pass “the single most relevant specialization test,” stating that a professional’s specialization (a practiced in the defendant) must match the defendant’s area of ​​expertise.

“There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about this rule. Seriman vs. Colton.

“This court cannot rewrite the statute or interpret the 1993 statute as if it were the same as the 1986 statute. Since the family could have qualified if they had spent only a significant portion of their professional time in relevant and relevant areas of expertise in the years prior to the allegations of misconduct, the plaintiffs substantiate their allegations. I have to tell Congress.”

Learn more about the case of AMA Litigation Center Offers Assistance learn about Litigation Center Case Selection Criteria.

Antonio Seriman asked the Court to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly applied Michigan law when it ruled that his expert witness did not qualify as an expert.

Defendant physician Jeffrey J. Colton, MD, was performing facial plastic and reconstructive surgery when he treated Selliman. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the procedures Seriman underwent were for cosmetic purposes and not for medical purposes.

However, in the past year, Selliman’s specialists spent only 10% of their dedicated time practicing facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. The remaining 90% of his time was spent in ENT practice, according to court documents.

The law is “specific. You need what you spend. Any less is not enough,” said Brief.

The AMA Litigation Center and MSMS explained why the state legislature changed a 1986 law governing expert witness testimony. I was able to qualify to testify under

“This standard gave Michigan courts the freedom to determine whether the expert provided had the necessary knowledge of the standard of care to pass evidence collection,” the summary explains. doing. A 1986 law permitted experts to testify even if they were not qualified in the defendant’s area of ​​expertise or had not practiced medicine for decades.

“This has led to a proliferation of circuit-riding ‘experts’ who only ‘practice’ in the litigation arena, offer ‘pay for the testimony you want’, and jeopardize the integrity of the judicial process.” The resulting “perfect storm” has contributed to high costs of malpractice insurance, reluctance of physicians to practice in high-risk specialties, and consequent lack of access to health care. rice field.

“This is the ‘logic’ asserted by plaintiff Seriman in this case. But his analysis is outdated. The 1986 statute no longer governs,” Brief asked the Michigan Supreme Court not to consider the case, or if it did, to uphold the appellate court’s decision to dismiss Selliman’s argument. increase.