Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
July 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
135879 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
TRACY DRAKE, Personal Representative for Robert P. Young, Jr.
the Estate of ROBERT DRAKE, Deceased, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v SC: 135879
COA: 270225
Jackson CC: 03-001785-NH
AMY SCHANTZ-RONTAL, M.D., ROLANDO
BEREDO, M.D., DOWNTOWN MEDICAL,
P.L.L.C., VASUDEV ANANTHRAM, M.D.,
SADASIVA REDDY, M.D., JACKSON
RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.C., TIMOTHY
MURRAY, M.D., CHAKRAVARTHY KANDURU,
M.D., and W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2007
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows:
I dissent from the order and would reverse for the reasons stated by the dissenting
judge in the Court of Appeals as stated below:
FITZGERALD, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the trial court’s order striking all of plaintiff’s expert
witnesses as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery was an abuse
of discretion. Because of the importance of expert testimony in medical
2
malpractice actions, the trial court’s order resulted in the dismissal of
plaintiff’s lawsuit. Although striking witnesses is an appropriate sanction
in some cases, it is important to remember that the policy of this state
favors the meritorious determination of issues. Tisbury v Armstrong, [194]
Mich App 19, 21; 486 NW2d 51 (1992). After reviewing the record, I do
not consider plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct so egregious or defendant’s
prejudice so substantial that imposing what is, in essence, the most serious
sanction available, is justified. See Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-
33; 451 NW2d 571 [(1990)] (discussing the factors to be considered when
determining the appropriate sanction). The interests of justice would have
been better served by limiting plaintiff to calling only those witnesses
identified in her October 25, 2005, and November 17, 2005,
correspondences to defendant. [Drake v Schantz-Rontal, unpublished
dissenting opinion by Fitzgerald, J., entered November 20, 2007 (Docket
No. 270225).]
KELLY, J., joins the statement of WEAVER, J.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 25, 2008 _________________________________________
s0722 Clerk