Opinion · Milaw Michigan
DIVELY v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, 472 Mich. 906 (2005)
PATRICIA DIVELY, Pers. Representative of the Est. of MICHAEL DIVELY,Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,Defendant-Appellee., 696 N.W.2d 709 (Mich. 2005)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Milaw Michigan
- Jurisdiction
- Milaw
- Date
- 2005-05-26
- Topic
- general
DIVELY v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, 472 Mich. 906 (2005) 696 N.W.2d 709 PATRICIA DIVELY, Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHAEL DIVELY,Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,Defendant-Appellee. No. 127218.Supreme Court of Michigan. May 26, 2005.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed DIVELY v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, 472 Mich. 906 (2005). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
DIVELY v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,472 Mich. 906(2005)
696 N.W.2d 709
PATRICIA DIVELY, Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHAEL DIVELY,
Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 127218.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
May 26, 2005.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. Pursuant to MCR 7.316(A)(4), we DIRECT the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in light of the transcript establishing that Lighthall was in fact not among the witnesses identified during voir dire. We further DIRECT that the Court of Appeals reconsider the admissibility of Lighthall's testimony under MRE 702 in light of our decisions inGilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp,470 Mich 749(2004), andCraig v. Oakwood Hospital,471 Mich 67(2004).
We do not retain jurisdiction.