Legal Opinion

Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctr

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2006No. Docket 124994, 124995, 126275PublishedCited by 126 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarkman, J.

We granted leave to appeal in these two cases to consider whether plaintiffs’ proposed expert witnesses are qualified under MCL 600.2169(1) to give expert testimony on the appropriate standards of medical practice or care. The trial courts in both cases ruled that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses are not qualified under § 2169(1). In Woodard, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on this issue, and, in Hamilton, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. We conclude that the trial courts did not abuse their discretion in concluding that plaintiffs’ proposed expert…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  2. McDougall v. SchanzMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital ManagersMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Halloran v. BhanMichigan Supreme Court · 2004

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by126 opinions

  1. People v. SteeleMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. People v. FonvilleMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Casey v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Edry v. AdelmanMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Barnett v. HidalgoMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API