«STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM GARCIA, personal representative of UNPUBLISHED the Estate of BEVERLY KAY GARCIA, July 21, 2015 ...»
In contrast with the defense experts’ testimony, Dr. Goldstein’s conclusions constituted neither purely subjective beliefs nor unsupported scientific allegation. The articles he cited demonstrate that the science he relies on does not qualify as “junk.” Accordingly, a jury rather than the circuit court should determine whether Dr. Goldstein’s opinions are more persuasive than those of the competing experts.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
The circuit court erred in determining that MCL 600.2955(1)(f) weighed against admission.
This factor calls for an examination of “[w]hether the basis for the opinion is reliable and whether experts in that field would rely on the same basis to reach the type of opinion being proferred.” The statutory factors involve substantial overlap. We have determined that the peerreviewed materials upon which Dr. Goldstein relied adequately support that “the basis for [his] opinion [was] reliable” and that other “experts in the field would rely on the same basis to reach the type of opinion being proffered.” Moreover, the circuit court’s brief assertion “that the plaintiff has failed in that respect as well” was too cursory to permit appellate review of its reasoning.
-15s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ Deborah A. Servitto