EST OF ROBERT GREATHOUSE V CHARLES RHODES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SALLY GREATHOUSE, as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE of ROBERT
GREATHOUSE,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 14, 2001
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v
No. 214434
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 96-003566-NH
DR. CHARLES RHODES, M.D. and
SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CLINIC,
ON REMAND
Defendants-Appellees/CrossAppellants,
and
DR. JOHN DUGE, M.D. and UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL SPECIALISTS,
Updated Copy
March 1, 2002
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Our Supreme Court has reversed in part our prior judgment in this matter and remanded
this case to our Court with instructions to determine whether MCL 600.2169(1) applies under the
facts and, if so, to consider the effect of our Supreme Court's decision in McDougall v Schanz,
461 Mich 15; 597 NW2d 148 (1999). 465 Mich 885 (2001). The facts and issues are set out in
our previous decision, Greathouse v Rhodes, 242 Mich App 221; 618 NW2d 106 (2000).
In its order remanding this case, our Supreme Court reversed our holding that the trial
court properly denied plaintiff 's motion to strike Dr. Charles Rhodes' standard of care witnesses
under MCL 600.2169(1)(a) because plaintiff failed to file her motion within a reasonable time
after learning the identities of the experts. Greathouse, supra, 242 Mich App 231. Because
plaintiff did not forfeit her right to challenge Dr. Rhodes' witnesses on the basis of the time of
-1-
her challenge, we now consider the trial court's ruling regarding the application of MCL
600.2169(1)(a).
We hold that this case implicates § 2169 because plaintiff challenges the qualifications of
Dr. Rhodes' "standard of care" witnesses because they are not board certified in the same
specialty. Though the trial court initially granted plaintiff 's motion on the basis of § 2169, it
ultimately denied plaintiff 's motion to strike because "it was compelled to adhere to the
McDougall [v Eliuk, 218 Mich App 501; 554 NW2d 56 (1996)] holding that § 2169 was
unconstitutional . . . ." Greathouse, supra, 242 Mich App 226. As we observed in our prior
opinion, "our Supreme Court reversed McDougall and concluded that § 2169 is 'an enactment of
substantive law' and '[a]s such does not impermissibly infringe this Court's constitutional rulemaking authority.'" Greathouse, supra, 242 Mich App 228, quoting McDougall v Schanz, supra,
461 Mich 37. Therefore, we ruled that the basis for the trial court's decision was erroneous.
Greathouse, supra, 242 Mich App 228.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying on the basis of the alleged
unconstitutionality of § 2169 plaintiff 's motion to strike, and we remand for consideration of
plaintiff 's motion under the statute. Specifically, the trial court should determine the merits of
plaintiff 's motion in which she argued that Dr. Rhodes' "standard of care" witnesses do not
comply with § 2169 because Dr. Rhodes is a board-certified general surgeon and the proposed
witnesses are not; one witness is an internal medicine specialist, and the other two are boardcertified family practitioners. Further, the trial court should consider Dr. Rhodes' argument that
§ 2169 does not preclude his witnesses because he does not practice general surgery regularly
and did not practice general surgery on the decedent, Robert Greathouse.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.