Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Weymers v. Khera

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1997No. 102961, Calendar No. 6Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

I agree with part II of the majority opinion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs’ first amended complaint inadequately notified defendants that plaintiffs sought damages for pulmonary injuries. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend because of its late date. However, I respectfully dissent with respect to part I of the majority opinion. I would recognize a cause of action for the loss of an opportunity to avoid physical harm less than death.

Generally, in an action alleging medical malpractice, the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Moning v. AlfonoMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Kramer v. Lewisville Memorial HospitalTexas Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

7 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