Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Potter v. McLeary

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2009No. 136336. Calendar No. 7Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMaekman, J.

I agree with the majority that plaintiffs notice of intent was sufficient with regard to defendant Kristyn Murry and that defendant Huron Valley Radiology, EC. (HVR) was entitled to a notice of intent. However, I disagree that the notice of intent was sufficient with regard to HVR. The notice of intent did not contain a statement of “[t]he applicable standard of practice or care alleged by the claimant” with regard to HVR, as is required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(b). As this Court explained in Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 693-694; 684 NW2d 711 (2004) (Roberts IT), a…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Odom v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Smith v. KhouriMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

24 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