What’s the Difference Between IME and You: General Medical Statements and Lay Testimony for Causation Won’t Do

In McConkey v Fremont Ins. Co., unpublished opinion per curiam, COA, 09-20-18, (Docket No. 340287), the MI COA underscored the importance of specific medical testimony and inappropriateness of lay testimony when determining a sufficient causal nexus between accident-related injuries and long-term care.

Plaintiffs cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact about medical causation by relying on lay witness testimony from family and friends because medical causation is outside the scope of lay knowledge.

General statements from a physician that has not evaluated a patient post-accident regarding the possible cause of a post-accident condition cannot create a question of fact because the general statements lack contemplation of the specific facts and circumstances at issue in any particular case, thereby amounting to speculation or conjecture.

To access the full article: http://bit.ly/2y3UFi5