Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
130604 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
STEVEN JAMES, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman,
of the Estate of MARJORIE JAMES, Justices
Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 130604
COA: 262622
Jackson CC: 03-006278-NH
W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
and PHILLIP RICHARDS, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
KHAWAJA IKRAM, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the majority's decision to deny leave to appeal. I write separately
because I am disturbed by the analysis the Court of Appeals employed in justifying its
decision to reverse the trial court's summary disposition order. The statute at issue in this
case, MCL 600.2912d(1), requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to file an affidavit of
merit with his complaint. In Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand)1, this
1
470 Mich 679 (2004).
2
Court discussed the adequacy requirements for notices of intent under MCL 600.2912b.
Despite the striking similarities between the notice of intent statute and the affidavit of
merit statute, the Court of Appeals held that differing "policy considerations" made an
application of Roberts unwarranted. Indeed the panel made its "policy considerations"
known by holding that "unlike the court in Roberts, we do not need to read additional
requirements or limitations into the [affidavit of merit] statute to aid its rational
application or workability."
Simply stated, the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Roberts to this case.2
The panel did not provide adequate justification for its decision to disregard Roberts, but
merely relied on "policy considerations" as a subterfuge for its obvious disagreement
with Roberts. While the Court of Appeals is not required to agree with this Court's
decisions, it is required to properly apply those decisions. However, because the Court of
Appeals opinion is unpublished and has no precedential value, this Court's intervention is
unwarranted at this time.
2
Moreover, the Court of Appeals ignored this Court's remand order in Mullaney v
Kistler, 471 Mich 932 (2004), where this Court remanded back to the Court of Appeals a
case dealing with the sufficiency of an affidavit of merit specifically instructing the Court
of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of Roberts.
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 30, 2007 _________________________________________
l0723 Clerk