The trial court wrongly dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and negligence claims that arose during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic because the decedent’s injuries were not sustained “by reason of” healthcare services provided “in support of [the] state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period and therefore the Court of Claims grant of summary disposition was reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the hospital's liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency and did not need to show further reliance under the Grewe test.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion and order, finding no abuse of discretion.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the Oakland County trial court improperly granted an ex-husband’s motion to “clarify” the parties’ judgment of divorce because, in doing so, the trial court actually modified the judgment, thereby affecting the parties’ substantive rights.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In this suit contesting the validity of a divorce judgment, the trial court correctly held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and, as a result, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The probate court in this Mental Health Code case properly ordered the respondent to undergo a combined program of hospitalization and outpatient services, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, finding that the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.