Legal Opinion

Rheaume v. Vandenberg

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 3, 1999No. Docket 201362PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTalbot, J.

Defendant appeals by leave granted from an interlocutory order denying his motion for summary disposition. We reverse and remand.

On November 3, 1995, plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action against the physical therapy center of Weisman, Gitlin & Herkowitz, P.C., and against a “John Doe,” who was described as “one of defendant’s therapists.” On the same day, plaintiffs mailed written notice of their intent to sue to the offices of Weisman, Gitlin & Herkowitz, P.C. Their notice of intent to sue provided, in pertinent part:

This Notice is intended to apply to the following health care…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Jennings v. SouthwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Neal v. Oakwood Hospital Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1998

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Waltz v. WyseMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Miller v. Chapman ContractingMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Holmes v. Michigan Capital Medical CenterMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. In Re BENNETT ESTATEMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003

11 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