Loading
In Michigan medical malpractice cases involving a specialist, MCL 600.2169 sets qualification requirements for standard-of-care experts, including specialty-matching requirements. The Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that MCL 600.2169 does not require a separate match for an area properly classified as a subspecialty.
In Stokes v. Swofford, decided with Selliman v. Colton on July 25, 2024, the Court partially overruled Woodard v. Custer. For medical malpractice claims against physicians, Stokes ties specialty matching to specialties recognized by the ABMS, AOA, ABPS, or other similar nationally recognized physician umbrella-certifying organizations. It does not require precise subspecialty matching. Other licensing, practice, qualification, and admissibility requirements still apply.
This guide explains what Stokes changed and what attorneys should verify when selecting a Michigan medical standard-of-care expert.
MCL 600.2169 governs standard-of-care expert testimony in Michigan medical malpractice actions. The proposed expert must be licensed as a health professional in Michigan or another state and meet the statute's applicable specialty and practice requirements.
If the party against whom or on whose behalf the standard-of-care testimony is offered is a specialist, the expert must have specialized in the same specialty at the time of the occurrence underlying the action. If that party was board certified, the expert must also have the required board certification in that specialty.
During the year immediately before the occurrence, a specialist expert also must have devoted a majority of professional time to qualifying clinical practice, instruction, or both. That work must have been in the same health profession and specialty. MCL 600.2169(1)(c) provides a separate rule for general practitioners.
Under MCL 600.2169(2), the court must, at a minimum, evaluate the expert's education and training, area of specialization, length of active practice or instruction, and relevance of the testimony. Subsection (3) also allows an expert to be disqualified on other grounds.
Woodard v. Custer treated subspecialties as specialties under MCL 600.2169 and applied a "one most relevant specialty" framework. Stokes partially overruled Woodard on subspecialty matching but agreed that only the one most relevant specialty must match.
For medical malpractice claims against physicians, Stokes focuses on specialties recognized by the ABMS, AOA, ABPS, or other similar nationally recognized physician umbrella-certifying organizations. Once an area is properly classified as a subspecialty within the relevant specialty, MCL 600.2169 does not require a separate subspecialty match, although the statute's other requirements still apply.
Michigan medical malpractice expert witness qualifications changed after Stokes v. Swofford, which clarified that physician experts generally must match the relevant specialty but not a properly classified subspecialty under MCL 600.2169. This article explains the decision’s effect on specialty matching, certification and practice requirements, and the additional admissibility standards attorneys should consider under Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 and related statutes.
Healthcare Law
Litigation
Litigation Support
In Michigan medical malpractice cases involving a specialist, MCL 600.2169 sets qualification requirements for standard-of-care experts, including specialty-matching requirements. The Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that MCL 600.2169 does not require a separate match for an area properly classified as a subspecialty.
In Stokes v. Swofford, decided with Selliman v. Colton on July 25, 2024, the Court partially overruled Woodard v. Custer. For medical malpractice claims against physicians, Stokes ties specialty matching to specialties recognized by the ABMS, AOA, ABPS, or other similar nationally recognized physician umbrella-certifying organizations. It does not require precise subspecialty matching. Other licensing, practice, qualification, and admissibility requirements still apply.
This guide explains what Stokes changed and what attorneys should verify when selecting a Michigan medical standard-of-care expert.
MCL 600.2169 governs standard-of-care expert testimony in Michigan medical malpractice actions. The proposed expert must be licensed as a health professional in Michigan or another state and meet the statute's applicable specialty and practice requirements.
If the party against whom or on whose behalf the standard-of-care testimony is offered is a specialist, the expert must have specialized in the same specialty at the time of the occurrence underlying the action. If that party was board certified, the expert must also have the required board certification in that specialty.
During the year immediately before the occurrence, a specialist expert also must have devoted a majority of professional time to qualifying clinical practice, instruction, or both. That work must have been in the same health profession and specialty. MCL 600.2169(1)(c) provides a separate rule for general practitioners.
Under MCL 600.2169(2), the court must, at a minimum, evaluate the expert's education and training, area of specialization, length of active practice or instruction, and relevance of the testimony. Subsection (3) also allows an expert to be disqualified on other grounds.
Woodard v. Custer treated subspecialties as specialties under MCL 600.2169 and applied a "one most relevant specialty" framework. Stokes partially overruled Woodard on subspecialty matching but agreed that only the one most relevant specialty must match.
For medical malpractice claims against physicians, Stokes focuses on specialties recognized by the ABMS, AOA, ABPS, or other similar nationally recognized physician umbrella-certifying organizations. Once an area is properly classified as a subspecialty within the relevant specialty, MCL 600.2169 does not require a separate subspecialty match, although the statute's other requirements still apply.
In Stokes, the defendant was a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, while the plaintiff proposed Dr. Berger, a diagnostic radiologist who subspecialized in neuroradiology. Because his neuroradiology practice fell within diagnostic radiology, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that he practiced the relevant specialty and satisfied MCL 600.2169(1).
The companion Selliman case shows that deciding whether a certification is a specialty or subspecialty can require close factual analysis. The Court remanded Selliman for the trial court to make that determination, with an evidentiary hearing available if needed. At a minimum, the trial court should consider whether obtaining the certification at issue requires an existing specialty certification from an umbrella certifying organization. It may also examine the certification's requirements, the rigor of its process and assessments, and how much the relevant areas of medical practice overlap.
Stokes may broaden the pool of potential standard-of-care experts when a proposed physician expert shares the relevant baseline specialty but practices a different subspecialty. It does not make an expert automatically admissible or eliminate the remaining qualification and admissibility requirements under MCL 600.2169 and Michigan Rule of Evidence 702.
Attorneys should treat specialty matching as the beginning of the qualification analysis, not the end.
MCL 600.2912d also generally requires an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional who the plaintiff's attorney reasonably believes meets the requirements of MCL 600.2169.
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Stokes v. Swofford clarified that precise subspecialty matching is not required for physician standard-of-care experts governed by the decision. Attorneys should still evaluate specialty, certification, recent practice, relevant experience, and compliance with MCL 600.2169, Michigan Rule of Evidence 702, and MCL 600.2955 when applicable.
Does a Michigan Medical Malpractice Expert Need the Same Subspecialty as the Defendant?
Not necessarily. For physician experts governed by Stokes, MCL 600.2169 does not require matching of an area properly classified as a subspecialty. However, whether a particular certification is a specialty or a subspecialty can require a fact-specific analysis.
Does MCL 600.2169 Apply to Every Medical Expert Opinion?
No. The statute specifically addresses expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care in medical malpractice actions. Other medical expert testimony may be governed by different requirements, including Michigan Rule of Evidence 702.
Can an Expert Who Matches the Specialty Still Be Excluded?
Yes. Matching under MCL 600.2169(1) does not end the analysis. The court must consider the factors in subsection (2) and retains authority under subsection (3) to disqualify an expert on other grounds.
How Does Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 Fit Into the Analysis?
MRE 702 sets out additional qualification and admissibility requirements for expert testimony. The witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The proponent must also demonstrate to the court, more likely than not, that the testimony satisfies the rule's requirements concerning helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application. For scientific expert opinions, MCL 600.2955 also provides statutory reliability requirements applicable in medical malpractice actions.
In Stokes, the defendant was a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, while the plaintiff proposed Dr. Berger, a diagnostic radiologist who subspecialized in neuroradiology. Because his neuroradiology practice fell within diagnostic radiology, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that he practiced the relevant specialty and satisfied MCL 600.2169(1).
The companion Selliman case shows that deciding whether a certification is a specialty or subspecialty can require close factual analysis. The Court remanded Selliman for the trial court to make that determination, with an evidentiary hearing available if needed. At a minimum, the trial court should consider whether obtaining the certification at issue requires an existing specialty certification from an umbrella certifying organization. It may also examine the certification's requirements, the rigor of its process and assessments, and how much the relevant areas of medical practice overlap.
Stokes may broaden the pool of potential standard-of-care experts when a proposed physician expert shares the relevant baseline specialty but practices a different subspecialty. It does not make an expert automatically admissible or eliminate the remaining qualification and admissibility requirements under MCL 600.2169 and Michigan Rule of Evidence 702.
Attorneys should treat specialty matching as the beginning of the qualification analysis, not the end.
MCL 600.2912d also generally requires an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional who the plaintiff's attorney reasonably believes meets the requirements of MCL 600.2169.
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Stokes v. Swofford clarified that precise subspecialty matching is not required for physician standard-of-care experts governed by the decision. Attorneys should still evaluate specialty, certification, recent practice, relevant experience, and compliance with MCL 600.2169, Michigan Rule of Evidence 702, and MCL 600.2955 when applicable.
Does a Michigan Medical Malpractice Expert Need the Same Subspecialty as the Defendant?
Not necessarily. For physician experts governed by Stokes, MCL 600.2169 does not require matching of an area properly classified as a subspecialty. However, whether a particular certification is a specialty or a subspecialty can require a fact-specific analysis.
Does MCL 600.2169 Apply to Every Medical Expert Opinion?
No. The statute specifically addresses expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care in medical malpractice actions. Other medical expert testimony may be governed by different requirements, including Michigan Rule of Evidence 702.
Can an Expert Who Matches the Specialty Still Be Excluded?
Yes. Matching under MCL 600.2169(1) does not end the analysis. The court must consider the factors in subsection (2) and retains authority under subsection (3) to disqualify an expert on other grounds.
How Does Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 Fit Into the Analysis?
MRE 702 sets out additional qualification and admissibility requirements for expert testimony. The witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The proponent must also demonstrate to the court, more likely than not, that the testimony satisfies the rule's requirements concerning helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application. For scientific expert opinions, MCL 600.2955 also provides statutory reliability requirements applicable in medical malpractice actions.
Healthcare Law
Litigation
Litigation Support
State by State Expert Witness Rules
State by State Expert Witness Rules
