The case was a wrongful death medical malpractice action brought by the personal representative of a patient who died from complications, including anoxic brain injury, after a doctor perforated his coronary artery during a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedure at Borgess Medical Center. The trial court dismissed the suit with prejudice under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8) on the ground that the plaintiff's pre-suit notice of intent failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of MCL 600.2912b and the limitations period had run. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal with respect to the individual physician but affirmed the dismissal with prejudice as to the corporate defendants because it was bound by the precedent in McLean v. McElhaney, while declaring a conflict with that decision and indicating that, if not bound, it would have ordered dismissal without prejudice to allow refiling by a successor representative.
In this Michigan Court of Appeals case, plaintiff Michael Allard sued his no-fault insurer, State Farm, for first-party personal injury protection (PIP) benefits after claiming a lower back injury from fueling his vehicle in 2001; State Farm denied the claim, attributing the injury to a pre-existing condition. Both parties rejected a $55,000 case evaluation award, and a jury returned a verdict of no cause of action in State Farm's favor. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Allard's motion for a new trial or JNOV, finding the verdict consistent and supported by the evidence. However, it reversed the denial of State Farm's motion for case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403, holding that sanctions are mandatory when both parties reject the evaluation and the verdict favors the opposing party, with no applicable exceptions, and remanded for determination of the amount.
The case involved Wayne County's constitutional challenge to 2002 PA 90, which created a public airport authority to assume operational jurisdiction over Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Willow Run Airport from the county, along with related assets, obligations, and employees. The county and its commissioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations including under the Headlee Amendment regarding unfunded mandates and employee transfers, while the county treasurer cross-claimed on asset transfer procedures. The court held that the Headlee claim on non-transferring employees was not ripe for decision, that the authority assumed pension responsibilities under the statute so no unfunded new activity existed, and that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving unconstitutionality on the remaining claims. It therefore granted summary disposition to defendants and dismissed the claims with prejudice, except for the unripe Headlee issue.
The case involved Toni Cato Riggs, who was charged with first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy in the shooting death of her husband; after an initial dismissal for lack of probable cause that was affirmed on appeal, the prosecution refiled charges based in part on incriminating statements she made to undercover DEA agents during a separate federal drug investigation and later to a state detective while appeals were pending. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Riggs's convictions and life sentences, holding that the statements were admissible. The core reasoning was that the federal agents' questioning was part of an independent narcotics probe, not undertaken at the state's behest or to circumvent her Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the dismissed state case, and that no agency relationship existed between the federal and state authorities that would render the federal contacts a continuation of the state prosecution.
