|
No. 132688
| Melissa Boodt, as Personal Representative of the |
|
Mark R. Granzotto |
| Estate of David Waltz, Deceased, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Kalamazoo - Schaefer, P.) |
|
|
| Borgess Medical Center, Michael Andrew Lauer, |
|
William L. Henn |
| M.D., and Heart Center for Excellence, P.C., |
|
Curtis R. Hadley |
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Michael Andrew Lauer, M.D., P.C., |
|
|
| Defendant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal as Cross-Appellant>>
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Borgess Medical Center's Brief in Opposition to Application for
Leave to Appeal as Cross-Appellant>>
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Borgess Medical Center's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants Michael Laurer, M.D., and Heart Center for Excellence, P.C.s' Application
for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant Michael Laurer, M.D.'s, Reply Brief and Heart Center for Excellence, P.C.'s Reply Brief in Opposition of Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants Michael Laurer, M.D., and Heart Center for Excellence, P.C.'s Supplemental Brief>>
Citizens for Better Care's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Association for Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Melissa Boodt sued Dr. Michael Lauer for medical malpractice; Boodt alleged that Lauer negligently performed a balloon angioplasty on David Waltz, perforating Waltz’s artery and causing his death from blood loss. Boodt also sued Borgess Medical Center, Heart Center for Excellence, P.C., and Lauer’s professional corporation. The defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiff's notice of intent to file suit did not comply with the requirements of MCL 600.2912b and Roberts v Mecosta Co General Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679 (2004). In part, the defendants argued that the notice of intent did not distinguish among the defendants as to the standard of care that should apply to each, did not explain what the defendants should have done, and did not state how their actions caused Waltz’s death. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to all the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the notice of intent was sufficient to give the defendants notice of the nature of her claims, and that any dismissal should have been without prejudice in order to allow a successor personal representative to file a new notice of intent and complaint. In a published, split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. All three judges on the panel agreed that the notice of intent, when read as a whole, was sufficient as to Lauer, but not as to the corporate defendants because it failed to mention them. The corporate defendants were dismissed with prejudice. Lauer and the Heart Center for Excellence, P.C., appeal; the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal.
Top of Page
|
