For most physicians, the Michigan Supreme Court may seem far removed from the examination room. Yet decisions by the state's highest court can have a real impact on how medicine is practiced, how medical-malpractice cases are tried, and ultimately the cost and availability of healthcare in Michigan.
The Supreme Court does not make Michigan's laws. That responsibility belongs to the Legislature. There are legitimate legislative remedies to consider involving expert testimony, damages, and statutes of limitation in medical-malpractice cases. Those are policy decisions, and they belong to the legislative branch. The Supreme Court has a different role: to interpret and apply the laws enacted by the Legislature.
The medical community needs to engage both branches while recognizing those different responsibilities. The question for the Court should be whether it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution, statutes, and established precedent, not whether a particular outcome favors physicians or plaintiffs.
Michigan has spent decades developing a statutory framework intended to balance the rights of injured patients with the need for predictable medical-liability rules. Tort-reform legislation enacted in the 1990s established important safeguards concerning expert testimony, damages, and the timing of malpractice claims. Those protections were intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits while preserving a patient's right to bring a legitimate claim.
Expert Testimony and "Nuclear Verdicts"
One of the most important issues is the standard for admitting expert testimony. Medical-malpractice cases depend on qualified experts because jurors generally cannot determine whether a physician met the appropriate standard of care without specialized medical knowledge.
The Michigan Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Danhoff v. Fahim illustrates why this matters. The Court held that the absence of peer-reviewed literature supporting an expert's opinion is not, by itself, enough to exclude that testimony. The decision did not eliminate Michigan's statutory reliability requirements, but it made clear that peer-reviewed literature is one factor in determining whether expert testimony should be admitted.
That balance is important. Medicine does not have published research addressing every clinical circumstance. At the same time, expert testimony should be based on genuine expertise and a reliable methodology, not simply on a witness's credentials or personal opinion.
The integrity of expert testimony is especially important as malpractice verdicts continue to grow, with some extraordinarily large awards being described as "nuclear verdicts." Questionable expert testimony or speculative damages theories can lead to unpredictable liability, higher insurance costs, and more defensive medicine.
Current Cases
Two current cases illustrate how Supreme Court decisions can affect medical-malpractice law.
In Ernest v. McLaren, the issue concerns Michigan's medical-malpractice statute of limitations. Michigan generally provides a two-year limitations period, subject to statutory exceptions. The case demonstrates how the interpretation of established limitations rules can affect both a patient's ability to pursue a claim and a physician's right to eventual certainty that a claim has ended.
In Demott v. DMC, the claim involves neonatal sepsis and the death of a newborn. Among the damages being sought are future wages and household services the child might have provided after reaching adulthood. The trial court rejected those damages, and the matter was proceeding through the appellate courts.
These cases represent why the Supreme Court matters to medicine. Questions about expert testimony, statutes of limitation, and damages may begin as legal issues, but their effects reach well beyond the courtroom.
The Proper Balance
Michigan's medical-malpractice system needs to protect patients who suffer legitimate injuries while also allowing physicians to practice without unpredictable or unsupported liability. That requires qualified experts, reliable evidence, predictable rules, and fair compensation for injuries that are actually proven.
If there is a need to consider legislative remedies related to medical-malpractice and healthcare laws, those policy choices belong to the Legislature. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret and apply the law as it is written. Getting that balance right protects patients, supports the practice of medicine, and helps preserve access to healthcare throughout Michigan.
For further information, please contact MSMS Director of Government Affairs, Kate Dorsey at 517-336-5737 or kdorsey@msms.org.