Woodard v. Custer

• Decision Date: 12 July 2005
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124994,Docket No. 124995.
• Citation: 701 N.W.2d 133,473 Mich. 856
• Parties: Johanna WOODARD, Individually and as Next Friend of Austin D. Woodard, a Minor, and Steven Woodard, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Joseph R. CUSTER, M.D., Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and Michael K. Lipscomb, M.D., Michelle M. Nypaver, M.D., and Mona M. Riskalla, M.D., Defendants. Johanna Woodard, Individually and as Next Friend of Austin D. Woodard, a Minor, and Steven Woodard, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. University Of Michigan Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

701 N.W.2d 133

473 Mich. 856

Johanna WOODARD, Individually and as Next Friend of Austin D. Woodard, a Minor, and Steven Woodard, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Joseph R. CUSTER, M.D., Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and Michael K. Lipscomb, M.D., Michelle M. Nypaver, M.D., and Mona M. Riskalla, M.D., Defendants.

Johanna Woodard, Individually and as Next Friend of Austin D. Woodard, a Minor, and Steven Woodard, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. University Of Michigan Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 124994, 124995.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 12, 2005.

On December 9, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on defendants' application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2003 judgment of the Court of Appeals and plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to appeal. Plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed: (1) what are the appropriate definitions of the terms "specialty" and "board certified" as used in M.C.L. § 600.2169(1)(a); (2) whether either "specialty" or "board certified" includes subspecialties or certificates of special qualifications; (3) whether M.C.L. § 600.2169(1)(b) requires an expert witness to practice or teach the same subspecialty as the defendant; (4) whether M.C.L. § 600.2169 requires an expert witness to match all specialties, subspecialties, and certificates of special qualifications that a defendant may possess, or whether the expert witness need only match those that are relevant to the alleged act of malpractice. See Tate v. Detroit Receiving Hosp., 249 Mich.App. 212, 642 N.W.2d 346 (2002); and (5) what are the relevant specialties, subspecialties, and certificates of special qualifications in this case.

The American Osteopathic Association's Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

WEAVER, J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the Court's decision to grant leave to appeal on plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to appeal. However, I would not have decided defendant's application for leave to appeal separately and peremptorily, see 473 Mich. 1 (2005). I would have granted the defendant's application for leave to appeal to decide both applications at the same time.

I write separately to note that whether "specialty" or "board certified" in M.C.L. § 600.2169(1)(a) refers to subspecialties or certificates of special qualification is debatable.¹ It is possible that "board certified" refers only to the twenty-four board specialties recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the eighteen board specialties recognized by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA).² But it has also been suggested that "board certified" refers to the more than one hundred subspecialties recognized and certified by the ABMS and the AOA.³ The ABMS website further acknowledges that there are over 180 non-ABMS, "self-designated" medical "boards" in the...