Nelson v. American Sterilizer Co.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 105168,No. 167520,105168,167520 |
| Citation | 453 Mich. 946,554 N.W.2d 898 |
| Parties | Pearline NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN STERILIZER COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation; Michael Glaz and Ronald Maloney, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellants. COA |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Prior report: 212 Mich.App. 589, 538 N.W.2d 80 (1995).
On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file brief amicus curiae and the motion to strike are considered. The motions to file brief amicus curiae are GRANTED. The motion to strike is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal is also considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals except as it applies to the discovery order concerning Dr. Stawick and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of this order. The issue of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Bowles and Dr. Green must be determined under MRE 702. On remand, the court shall review the propriety of the trial court's exclusion of the expert evidence under MRE 702. In making that determination, the court shall specifically address defendant's argument concerning the appropriateness of the witnesses' reliance on animal studies in preference to existing epidemiological studies. If the court determines that the evidence is admissible, the court shall provide a summary of the recognized scientific principles supporting that testimony. Following a determination of the admissibility of the evidence, the court should consider the propriety of the trial court's order dismissing the complaint.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. American Sterilizer Co., Docket No. 199685
...plaintiff's expert witnesses' reliance on animal studies in preference to existing epidemiological studies. Nelson v. American Sterilizer Co., 453 Mich. 943, 554 N.W.2d 898 (1996). On remand, we conclude that the trial court correctly barred plaintiff's experts from testifying on the issue ......
-
Hilliard v. Schmidt
...468 (1997). In any event, the proper inquiry is whether the testimony was admissible under MRE 702. See Nelson v. American Sterilizer Co., 453 Mich. 946, 554 N.W.2d 898 (1996). Because the opinion testimony was not purely speculative, the trial court properly allowed it under MRE 702, and i......