Medical malpractice; Proximate cause; Kalaj v Khan; Expert testimony; Woodard v Custer; Motion to adjourn; Motion to extend discovery; McDonald Ford Sales, Inc v Ford Motor Co; Affidavit; MCR 2.116(G)(5)

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendants-physical therapy providers summary disposition of plaintiff’s medical malpractice case. Plaintiff sued defendants for an injury he claimed he suffered while rehabbing his surgically repaired shoulder. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, in part, because plaintiff failed to present expert testimony showing they proximately caused the reinjury to his shoulder. On appeal, the court first noted that even if it “were inclined to consider plaintiff’s argument that the trial court followed the wrong analysis, ultimately, it would not matter because plaintiff agrees with the conclusion that this is a medical malpractice case.” It next found that the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition where plaintiff “failed to produce any evidence from an expert showing defendants proximately caused his injuries.” The court further noted that because plaintiff failed to reschedule the hearing on his motion to adjourn, which appeared “premised on a fatal flaw which could have been remedied before the close of discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion” by declining to consider it. Finally, it found no merit to plaintiff’s “disingenuous argument that defendants engaged in impropriety in seeking” his surgeon’s affidavit, or his “position contesting the contents of the affidavit.” The trial court did not err by considering the surgeon’s affidavit in its decision to grant summary disposition. Affirmed.