Barnett v. Hidalgo
Michigan Supreme Court
732 N.W.2d 472 (2007)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Wapeka Barnett (plaintiff) hired three medical experts to prepare affidavits explaining why three doctors (defendants) had allegedly committed medical malpractice and caused her husband’s death. The experts prepared the affidavits using their own professional expertise and the information available. Barnett then filed the affidavits as part of her medical-malpractice complaint. During discovery, Barnett and her experts learned additional information that changed the experts’ opinions. At trial, the court allowed the experts’ original affidavits to be admitted as evidence. The court also allowed the experts to be cross-examined about the difference between the earlier affidavits and the experts’ current trial testimony. The jury found that there was no medical malpractice, and Barnett’s claims were dismissed. Barnett appealed, arguing that her experts’ affidavits should have been excluded as hearsay. The appellate court agreed and reversed the judgment. The doctors then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Markman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.