Legal Opinion

Hetrick v. Friedman

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided December 1, 1999No. Docket 206692PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSaad, J.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In 1994, plaintiffs Carolyn and Frank Hetrick filed a medical malpractice suit against defendants, alleging that defendant David Friedman, D.P.M., negligently performed podiatric surgery on Carolyn (1994 action). Blue Cross and Blue Shield (bcbs) intervened as a plaintiff in the 1994 action, asserting a contractual hen against any judgment or settlement for reimbursement of benefits it paid under an insurance pol icy. Subsequently,…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros.Michigan Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No. 6 v. Kalevanorman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1975

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wold Architects and Engineers v. StratMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  2. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Wayne CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. In Re Nestorovski EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Madison District Public Schools v. MyersMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API