Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boodt v. Borgess Medical Center

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 20, 2007No. Docket 266217Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWhitbeck, C.J.

I. OVERVIEW

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the notice of intent was sufficient with respect to the claims against Dr. Michael Andrew Lauer. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that the notice of intent was deficient with respect to the claims against Borgess Medical Center and Heart Center for Excellence, EC., for failure to comply with MCL 600.2912b. Hence, I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the claims against Borgess Medical Center and Heart Center for Excellence, EC., with prejudice.

I do not agree, however, with the majority’s…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Eggleston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Detroit, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Lindsey v. Harper HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Holmes v. Michigan Capital Medical CenterMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000

10 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