Defendants appeal a decision by the trail court in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant maintains that their experts should have been allowed. the appeals court agreed and reversed the lower court opinion.
Facts: This case (VICTOR KHZOUZ V STEPHEN MENDELSON MD – Court of Appeals of Michigan – March 13th, 2018) is one of medical malpractice on appeal. The plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a “pain pump” caused a condition called chrondrolysis, which subsequently caused the cartilage in his knee to deteriorate. Each party utilized expert witnesses to assist in their case. The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witnesses Dr. Harish Hosalkar and Dr. George Pappas and the defendant challenged this testimony. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff for partial summary disposition and the motion to exclude. The defendants are appealing the opinion.
Discussion: The defendants appeal the opinion denying their motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert witnesses as scientifically unreliable. The appeals court agreed with the defendants that the trial court’s analysis was in error in three ways. First, the trail court did not consider the admissibility of the testimony before considering it for purposes of summary disposition. Second, the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard to determine the correct standard of care. The trial court relied not on model jury instructions, not the actual language of the statute. Last, the trial court erred when it decided that it could not use medical literature under Daubert.
The court also opined that there was no reason why Dr, Hosalkar’s testimony on standard of care would be inadmissible at trial and the ruling of the trial court should be reversed. The court thus reversed the lower court opinion and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Conclusion: The court reversed the opinion of the lower court for summary disposition and excluding the defendants expert witnesses.