Smith v Beaumont Health
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that the good-cause standard under MCR 2.401(I)(2) — not the Dean factors — governs motions to amend witness lists, and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion and prematurely granting summary disposition in a medical malpractice case.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-06-30. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
SMITH v BEAUMONT HEALTH
Docket Nos. 167716 and 167720. Argued on application for leave to appeal January 21,
2026. Decided June 30, 2026.
Lawanna Smith, as personal representative of the estate of Jacqueline Harris, filed a
complaint in the Oakland Circuit Court against Jack D. Lennox, D.O.; his employer, Tri County
Orthopedics, PC; and Beaumont Hospital, alleging medical malpractice. Lennox performed knee
replacement surgery on Harris and allegedly failed to prescribe her a prescription-strength
anticoagulant. About 30 days after the surgery, Harris died from an acute pulmonary embolism.
The complaint was supported by an affidavit of merit (AOM) signed by B. Sonny Bal, M.D., in
which he attested, pursuant to MCL 600.2912d, that he was a licensed, practicing physician
specializing in orthopedic surgery during the one-year period before the alleged malpractice
occurred in May 2019. Plaintiff timely filed a witness list in April 2022, listing Bal as her sole
orthopedic surgery expert. The parties scheduled Bal’s deposition for August 15, 2022, but Bal
had to cancel due to an emergency. On September 16, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel told defendants’
counsel that he had been unable to obtain new potential dates from Bal for his deposition, and
plaintiff, without the trial court’s permission, filed an amended witness list, removing Bal and
naming John Hall, M.D., as plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert. The trial court, Nanci J. Grant,
J., ordered plaintiff to produce Bal for a deposition by November 2, 2022, and struck the amended
witness list. Plaintiff then filed an emergency motion to amend her witness list and, on
November 1, 2022, filed an “order of voluntary dismissal” purporting to dismiss all defendants
without prejudice. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to dismiss, and plaintiff moved for
voluntary dismissal. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal and emergency
motion to file an amended witness list. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court also
denied, rejecting plaintiff’s claim that Bal was uncooperative and noting that, had plaintiff
diligently prosecuted her case, she would have realized that Bal was uncooperative or unqualified
much sooner than November 2022. The court granted Beaumont’s motion for summary
disposition and closed the case, concluding that the AOM was invalid because Bal was not engaged
in the practice or teaching of medicine in the one-year period before the alleged conduct. Plaintiff
appealed as of right and the Court of Appeals, K. F. KELLY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and M. J. KELLY,
JJ., held in an unpublished per curiam opinion, issued September 12, 2024 (Docket No. 365062),
that the trial court had abused its discretion because its order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend
considered only prejudice, and it was required to also consider the other factors set forth in Dean
v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27 (1990). The panel also noted that the court’s order had effectively
resulted in the dismissal of plaintiff’s action, and the court was required to consider other potential sanctions first. Defendants applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave, the Court ordered and heard oral argument on the applications. ___ Mich ___; 21 NW3d 204 (2025).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice ZAHRA, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, held:
The correct standard for courts when considering whether to allow a party to amend its
witness list is the good-cause standard set forth in MCR 2.401(I)(2); therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider the Dean factors. Nonetheless, the circuit court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion under the good-cause standard that it purported to apply where the record indicated that plaintiff acted diligently and believed that Bal was qualified to execute the AOM. The circuit court additionally erred by prematurely granting summary disposition on the basis of its flawed decision denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her witness list to add an expert witness, which resulted in plaintiff’s failure to establish her claim.
1. The Court of Appeals erred by holding that a trial court must consider the Dean factors
when evaluating a party’s motion to amend its witness list. MCR 2.401(I) governs witness lists, and MCR 2.401(I)(2) states that the court may order that any witness not listed in accordance with the rule “will be prohibited from testifying at trial except upon good cause shown.” The rule is stated in plain terms, and there is no basis to depart from its plain language. The court rule properly focuses the trial court’s attention on the adequacy of the moving party’s explanation of good cause along with a showing that the party’s conduct supports this explanation. Court of Appeals caselaw supports that the court rule plainly expresses a good-cause standard, and from this caselaw comes basic considerations that are significant to a good-cause analysis. With regard to a party’s diligence, such considerations include the timeliness of a party’s motion to amend its witness list after discovering the unavailability of a witness, the absence of previous delays, whether the discovery period has concluded, the effect on mediation, and whether the party was made aware of the need to obtain another witness. These considerations demonstrate how application of the Dean factors is not an appropriate standard to evaluate a party’s motion to amend a witness list. In Dean, the Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s order barring the plaintiff from calling any witnesses as a sanction for failing to timely amend her witness list. The Court of Appeals listed factors to consider in this situation, including (1) whether the violation was willful or accidental; (2) the plaintiff’s history of refusing to comply with discovery requests or disclose witnesses; (3) the prejudice to the defendant; (4) notice to the defendant of the witness and how long before trial notice was received; (5) whether the plaintiff engaged in deliberate delay; (6) the plaintiff’s compliance with other provisions of the court’s order; (7) any attempt by the plaintiff to timely cure the defect; and (8) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. Only Factor (7) primarily relates to good cause. A trial court’s application of the Dean factors to a motion to amend a witness list does not focus on the most relevant considerations of that inquiry. While the Dean factors could be relevant, the primary considerations for a court
[This finding represents 2 closely related documents issued 2026-06-30 (same source, same action). Related: courtlistener:mich:10883043]
Why this matters
Smith v Beaumont Health is a civil procedure ruling about the standard for amending witness lists in medical malpractice litigation, not a health-benefits policy change — it does not alter coverage, licensing, or safety-net programs tracked in this area. The extractor’s flag on Medical Record Fees appears to be a false positive (the case involves a hospital defendant but not record-fee regulation). No health-and-benefits page requires an update from this finding.