1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 620 N.W.2d
  5. 620 N.W.2d 319 (2000)
 

HOLMES v. MICHIGAN CAPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

Docket Nos. 217826, 217975, 218240, 218270.

620 N.W.2d 319 (2000)

242 Mich. App. 703

Michael C. HOLMES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Holmes, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN CAPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, M. Jones, D.O., and Dr. Klepfsted, Defendants, and Olsten Health Care and Debra Waldie, R.N., B.S.N., Defendants-Appellants, Regina Malinowski and Raymond Malinowski, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Thomas Selznick, D.O., and Livonia Family Physicians, P.C., Defendants-Appellants. Michael C. Holmes, Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Holmes, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michigan Capital Medical Center, Olsten Health Care, and Debra Waldie, R.N., B.S.N., Defendants, and M. Jones, D.O., Defendant-Appellant. Michael C. Holmes, Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Holmes, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michigan Capital Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant, and M. Jones, D.O., Olsten Health Care, Debra Waldie, R.N., B.S.N., and Dr. Klepfsted, Defendants.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Decided October 10, 2000, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication December 8, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Fieger, Fieger, Schwartz & Kenney, P.C. (by Geoffrey Nels Fieger and Rebecca H. Sinn), Southfield, for Michael C. Holmes.

Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Jon D. Vander Ploeg), Grand Rapids, for Michigan Capital Medical Center.

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Foster, P.C. (by Mark A. Bush), Lansing, for M. Jones, D.O.

Fajen and Miller, P.L.L.C. (by Richard B. Bailey and Nelson P. Miller), Ann Arbor, for Olsten Health Care and Debra Waldie, R.N., B.S.N.

Schwartz & Jalkanen, P.C. (by Arthur W. Jalkanen and Gregory A. Light), Southfield, for Thomas Selznick, D.O., and Livonia Family Physicians, P.C.

Before: GAGE, P.J., and GRIBBS and SAWYER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals involving medical malpractice cases, defendants-appellants appeal by leave granted from orders denying their motions for summary disposition. We reverse and remand because we conclude that in each case defendants-appellants were entitled to summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) (claim barred because of statute of limitations).

Each defendant asserts entitlement to summary disposition on the basis that plaintiffs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases