The Michigan Supreme Court issued Craig v Oakwood Hospital (Case No. 121405; July 23, 2004). The court held that the trial court improperly denied the hospital’s motion to compel an evidentiary hearing regarding the qualifications and theories propounded by one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
Justice Young writes (excerpt):
A. MRE 702 AND DAVIS-FRYE ANALYSIS
Expert testimony is admitted pursuant to MRE 702, which provided, at the pertinent times:
If the court determines that recognized scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .
In construing this rule of evidence, we must apply “’the legal principles that govern the construction and application of statutes.’” When the language of an evidentiary rule is unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of the text “’without further judicial construction or interpretation.’”
The plain language of MRE 702 establishes three broad preconditions to the admission of expert testimony. First, the proposed expert witness must be “qualified” to render the proposed testimony. Generally, the expert may be qualified by virtue of “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” In a medical malpractice action such as this one, the court’s assessment of an expert’s “qualifications” are now guided by MCL 600.2169(2):
In determining the qualifications of an expert witness in an action alleging medical malpractice, the court shall, at a minimum, evaluate all of the following:
(a) The educational and professional training of the expert witness.
(b) The area of specialization of the expert witness.
(c) The length of time the expert witness has been engaged in the active clinical practice or instruction of the health profession or the specialty.
(d) The relevancy of the expert witness’s testimony.
Second, the proposed testimony must “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue . . . .” In other words, the expert opinion testimony “must serve to give the trier of fact a better understanding of the evidence or assist in determining a fact in issue.”
Finally, under MRE 702 as it read when this matter was tried, expert testimony must have been based on a “recognized” form of “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” The Court of Appeals properly construed this language in Nelson v American Sterilizer Co (On Remand):
The word “recognized” connotes a general acknowledgement of the existence, validity, authority, or genuineness of a fact, claim or concept. The adjective “scientific” connotes a grounding in the principles, procedures, and methods of science. Finally, the word “knowledge” connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The word applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds.
Continuing along these lines, the word “technical” signifies grounding in a specialized field of knowledge, or a particular “art, science, or the like.” Similarly, “specialized” suggests a foundation in a specific field of study or expertise.
When this case was tried, the admission of expert testimony was subject not only to the threshold requirements of MRE 702, but also to the standard articulated in People v Davis, now generally known in Michigan as the Davis-Frye test. In Davis, we held that expert opinion based on novel scientific techniques is admissible only if the underlying methodology is generally accepted within the scientific community. Thus, in determining whether the proposed expert opinion was grounded in a “recognized” field of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge as was required by MRE 702, a trial court was obligated to ensure that the expert opinion was based on accurate and generally accepted methodologies. The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of proving general acceptance under this standard.