Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87700; Published
Judges Beasley, Maher, and Dodge; 2-1 (with Judge Beasley Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 168 Mich App 238; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 decision, the majority reversed the trial court decision allowing the testimony of Donald Newman, M.D. regarding thermographic evidence of plaintiff s injury. The majority held that the trial court committed error in not addressing defendant's motion in limine and failing to conduct a Davis-Frye-type hearing to determine the reliability of thermographic evidence. Although the majority felt that the plaintiff’s expert witness should be disqualified, they also disagreed with Judge Beasley's lengthy dissent wherein he concluded that thermography, as presently developed in the medical field, was a useless and unreliable technique.
The majority remanded for a Davis-Frye-type hearing with instructions that the trial court should determine whether plaintiff’s expert witnesses were competent to testify in accordance with the requirements of Kluck v Borland, 162 Mich App 695 (1987); see Item No. 1077.
Judge Beasley, in a lengthy dissent, would hold that the thermographic evidence was inadmissible, but would reverse for further proceedings to determine whether plaintiff met his burden of proof under the Supreme Court decision in DiFranco.
