Skip to main content

January 2014

Jan 2014
31
January 31, 2014

COA holds that a medical malpractice expert witness does not need identical expertise as the doctor

An expert witness in a medical malpractice case does not need "identical experience and expertise" as the defendant in order to testify about whether the defendant complied with the standard of care.  MCL 600.2169(2) instructs the court to consider an expert's area of specialization when evaluating whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion.  Albro v Drayer involved a failed ankle surgery.  The defendant's experts had considerable experience with ankle reconstruction, but they did not have significant experience with the particular procedure at issue in the case.  The Court of Appeals held that the experts satisfied the requirements of MCL 600.2169(2) because they were experts in the same general field as the procedure at issue in the case.  A lack of significant experience with the specific procedure would go towards the weight of their opinions, not the admissibility. 

Jan 2014
31
January 31, 2014

COA upholds $53,958 sanction against hospital and its attorney for asserting a defense that directly contradicted evidence in their possession

In Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals held that sanctions were appropriately assessed against a hospital and its attorney who during discovery and trial presented a defense that was inconsistent with the facts known to the hospital and attorney.

Jan 2014
31
January 31, 2014

COA rules that riparian rights do not extend to man-made pond

In Holton v. Ward, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that riparian rights only extend to land abutting a natural watercourse.  Because Plaintiffs-Appellants had litigated this very issue and lost in an earlier contested case, their claim was barred by collateral estoppel, and they should have known their claim was frivolous.  Sanctions were therefore appropriate.

Jan 2014
31
January 31, 2014

COA rejects retroactive pricing in gas-cost-recovery proceedings

In In re Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., the Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Public Service Commission (“PSC”) could not apply its prospective rate change to purchases completed before the change’s effective date, regardless of whether Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (“Mich Con”) accelerated its purchases to avoid the rate change or the purchases lacked PSC approval prior to the effective date. The Court then upheld the PSC prospective rate change itself.

Jan 2014
31
January 31, 2014

COA enforces arbitrator-qualification provision under the FAA

In a case of first impression in Michigan, the Court of Appeals analyzed a court’s role in enforcing provisions of arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). In Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District v. Ric-Man Construction, Inc., the parties entered into a detailed arbitration agreement, which required one arbitrator be a lawyer with a background in construction litigation, among other things. Further, the agreement stated that if the parties could not agree on the arbitrator, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) would appoint one. After a dispute arose, the AAA selected an attorney-arbitrator who clearly did not meet the qualifications even though apparently a suitable attorney-arbitrator was available. The Drainage District filed suit, prior to any arbitration award, arguing that the AAA repudiated their agreement by failing to provide a suitable candidate. The Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, held that when a provision of an arbitration agreement is “central and key to the entire agreement to arbitrate” a court should enforce the agreement prior to an arbitration award.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 21)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset