Danhoff v. Fahim: Michigan Medical Expert Testimony Explained

In Danhoff v. Fahim, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed how courts evaluate the reliability of medical standard-of-care expert testimony. The decision did not create a new specialty-matching requirement or decide that the defendant committed malpractice.

What the Michigan Supreme Court decided

The July 8, 2024 Danhoff opinion concerned an alleged colon perforation during lumbar spine surgery. The lower courts excluded the plaintiff’s standard-of-care expert testimony largely because it lacked supporting published medical literature.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Reliability must be assessed under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955 in a way appropriate to the opinion offered; the absence of peer-reviewed literature is not automatically decisive. The expert’s statutory qualifications were not disputed. The ruling allowed further proceedings, rather than awarding damages or establishing negligence.

Qualifications, reliability, and causation are different questions

A malpractice evaluation should distinguish whether an expert is legally qualified, whether the proposed opinion is reliable, and whether the evidence connects a breach of the standard of care to the patient’s injury. Answering one question does not answer the others.

For a patient, that means a disappointing outcome is a reason to investigate the records, not proof by itself that a provider breached a legal duty. Similarly, finding a publication that describes a complication does not by itself explain whether that complication resulted from negligent treatment in an individual case.

Build a useful record for a malpractice consultation

• Create a dated timeline of symptoms, appointments, procedures, follow-up contacts, and subsequent treatment. Separate what you remember from what the records show.
• Collect the relevant office and hospital records, operative reports, consent documents, imaging reports, discharge instructions, and records of later corrective treatment.
• List the providers and facilities involved, including the names on bills and appointment communications.
• Save messages reporting symptoms or requesting help, along with the responses. Keep original attachments and timestamps.
• Describe the resulting losses: additional treatment, time away from work, assistance at home, and continuing limitations.

Use the decision as part of a case evaluation

Danhoff is useful context for an expert-evidence dispute, but it does not remove the need for case-specific review. Ask which treatment decision is being challenged, what evidence supports the standard of care, and what connects that decision to the injury.

If you are considering a claim, request a consultation with your treatment timeline and provider list available. Medical malpractice has specific procedural and timing requirements. Do not wait for every record to arrive before obtaining advice about deadlines.

Discuss your claim with Logeman & Iafrate

For a free consultation, contact Logeman & Iafrate, P.C. or call (734) 994-0200. Bring the records described above so the conversation can focus on your accident, available coverage, and next steps.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. The applicable law, policy terms, and deadlines depend on the facts of your case.

Did Danhoff establish that the surgeon was negligent?

No. The court reversed the expert-evidence ruling and remanded for further proceedings; it did not award damages or decide malpractice liability.

Did the decision impose a new specialty-matching rule?

No. The expert’s statutory qualifications were not disputed. The opinion addressed reliability of the standard-of-care testimony.

Should I wait until I collect all my records to contact a lawyer?

No. Begin organizing records, but obtain prompt advice about deadlines and the records needed for a case-specific review.