MAHENDRA DALMIA V CARL PALFFY

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MAHENDRA DALMIA, UNPUBLISHED February 6, 2007 Plaintiff-Appellant, v CARL PALFFY, M.D., EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL, PONTIAC, a/k/a TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, No. 264088 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 03-052350-NH Defendants-Appellees. Before: Borrello, P.J., and Jansen and Cooper, JJ. JANSEN, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in summarily striking Dr. Mehlman’s testimony. I write separately to emphasize my conclusion that Dr. Mehlman did nothing wrong. The deposition subpoena required that Dr. Mehlman bring with him to the deposition “[a] copy of all medical literature reviewed by deponent in connection with the present matter,” and “[a]ny and all medical records or other documents reviewed in connection with this matter.” (Emphasis added). However, Dr. Mehlman specifically testified during his deposition that he had not reviewed any medical literature or done any independent research in connection with this case. Instead, Dr. Mehlman simply based his deposition testimony on his years of experience in emergency medicine and the treatment of strokes. In short, because Dr. Mehlman reviewed no medical literature and did no independent research “in connection with this matter,” he was not required by the plain and unambiguous language of the subpoena to bring any materials with him to the deposition. No discovery violation in fact occurred in this case. Finally, I recognize that the trial court must serve as a “gatekeeper” to ensure the relevance and reliability of expert testimony. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 780-781; 684 NW2d 896 (2004). However, “[w]hile the exercise of this gatekeeper role is within a court’s discretion, a trial judge may neither ‘abandon’ this obligation nor ‘perform the function inadequately.’” Id. at 780, quoting Kumho Tire Co Ltd v Carmichael, 526 US 137, 158159; 119 S Ct 1167; 143 L Ed 2d 238 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring). If the trial court had serious doubts regarding the reliability and admissibility of Dr. Mehlman’s testimony, an evidentiary hearing should have been convened pursuant to MRE 702 and Daubert v Merrill -1- Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 590 US 579; 113 S Ct 2786; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). Rather than wholesale striking Dr. Mehlman’s testimony because of a purported, nonexistent discovery violation, the trial court should have followed established and proper procedures for assessing the reliability of Dr. Mehlman’s testimony. /s/ Kathleen Jansen -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.