be impossible for a physician of like qualification without the specialty knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to offer standard of care testimony on the alleged misadventure. In other words, satisfying the matching qualifications requirement alone may not be sufficient to offer standard of care testimony because the standard of care testimony must be directed to the relevant area of inquiry that is outside the physician’s classification when the physician is not practicing within his or her classification. Because Vashi was a resident, such an inquiry must include sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in, and familiarity with, the practice of the discrete specialty by residents. Bahr v Harper-Grace Hosps, 448 Mich 135, 141; 528 NW2d 170 (1995) (<HOLDING>) For all of these reasons, we conclude that the
holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care holding that a specialist may testify regarding the conduct of residents if the specialist has knowledge of the applicable standard of care holding that the standard of care applicable to a reasonable pharmaceutical company marketing product after minimum testing and without a warning does not entail specialized knowledge or skill unique to a scientific discipline and beyond the knowledge and experience of the average jury recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider