Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
MELISSA BOODT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Waltz, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellee and MICHAEL ANDREW LAUER, M.D., and HEART CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE, P.C., Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, and MICHAEL ANDREW LAUER, M.D., P.C., Defendant. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED JULY 2, 2008

No. 132688

PER CURIAM. At issue in this wrongful-death, medical-malpractice action is whether plaintiff's notice of intent was sufficient with respect to the defendant physician, Michael A. Lauer, M.D. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition, holding that plaintiff's notice of intent was not sufficient, and the Court of Appeals reversed with respect to the grant of summary disposition to Lauer. 272 Mich App 621; 728 NW2d 471 (2006). Regarding causation, the notice of intent states: "If the standard of care had been followed, [David] Waltz would not have died on October 11, 2001." This statement does not describe the "manner in which it is alleged the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury claimed in the notice," as required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(e). Even when the notice is read in its entirety, it does not describe the manner in which the breach was the proximate cause of the injury. When so read, the notice merely indicates that Lauer caused a perforation and that he then failed to do several things that he presumably should have done, such as perform a pericardiocentesis in a timely manner. However, the notice does not describe the manner in which these actions or the lack thereof caused Waltz's death. As this Court explained in Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 699-700 n 16; 684 NW2d 711 (2004) (Roberts II), "it is not sufficient under this provision to merely state that defendants' alleged negligence caused an injury. Rather,

Download MELISSA BOODT V BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER.pdf

Michigan Law