Alar v. Mercy Memorial Hospital
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJansen, J.
I concur in Docket No. 139088 that defendant Mercy Memorial Hospital is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion. I also concur that plaintiff, as the cross appellant in Docket No. 139088, has failed to raise an issue that requires reversal, except with regard to the award of costs and attorney fees. I must respectfully dissent, however, in Docket No. 139253, because I cannot agree that Dr. Godsell-Stytz’ conduct was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.
In her appeal, Dr. Godsell-Stytz raises a total of nine issues. I do not find any of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1988
- Swickard v. Wayne County Medical ExaminerMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Winiemko v. ValentiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
- Schutte v. Celotex Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.