Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do

Michigan Court of Appeals

Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do

DecidedOctober 22, 2020

Docket349522

StatusPublished

This text of Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do (Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do, (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ESTATE OF LINDA HORN, by JOELYNN T. FOR PUBLICATION STOKES, Personal Representative, October 22, 2020

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 349522 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL J. SWOFFORD, D.O., and LC No. 2018-164148-NH SOUTHFIELD RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, PLLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and MARKEY and HOOD, JJ.

BOONSTRA, P.J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately simply to encourage our Supreme Court, in this or another appropriate case, to clarify the law in this area. I note that while this case turns largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 557; 719 NW2d 842 (2006), by which we are bound, that decision featured no less than four opinions, including two concurring opinions (one of which was authored by the author of the four-Justice majority opinion) and a three-Justice dissent that maintained that it actually was the majority opinion (by virtue of the second concurrence). Moreover, this Court’s unpublished decision in Higgins v Traill, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 30, 2019 (Docket No. 343664), featured a separate concurring opinion by Judge GLEICHER in which she maintained that Woodard’s analysis was faulty in certain respects and should be reconsidered. Although the Supreme Court subsequently denied leave to appeal in Higgins, it did so on an evenly-split 3-3 vote, with one Justice not participating. And there remains disagreement—which the Supreme Court could put to rest, one way or another—about whether its order in Estate of Jilek v Stockson, 490 Mich 961 (2011), implicitly overruled Reeves v Carson City Hosp (On Remand), 274 Mich App 622; 736 NW2d 284 (2007).

For these reasons, I concur in the majority opinion, but encourage our Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity in this complex area of law.

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra

-1-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ESTATE OF LINDA HORN, by JOELYNN T. FOR PUBLICATION STOKES, Personal Representative, October 22, 2020

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 349522 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL J. SWOFFORD, D.O., and LC No. 2018-164148-NH SOUTHFIELD RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, PLLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and MARKEY and HOOD, JJ.

BOONSTRA, P.J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately simply to encourage our Supreme Court, in this or another appropriate case, to clarify the law in this area. I note that while this case turns largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 557; 719 NW2d 842 (2006), by which we are bound, that decision featured no less than four opinions, including two concurring opinions (one of which was authored by the author of the four-Justice majority opinion) and a three-Justice dissent that maintained that it actually was the majority opinion (by virtue of the second concurrence). Moreover, this Court’s unpublished decision in Higgins v Traill, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 30, 2019 (Docket No. 343664), featured a separate concurring opinion by Judge GLEICHER in which she maintained that Woodard’s analysis was faulty in certain respects and should be reconsidered. Although the Supreme Court subsequently denied leave to appeal in Higgins, it did so on an evenly-split 3-3 vote, with one Justice not participating. And there remains disagreement—which the Supreme Court could put to rest, one way or another—about whether its order in Estate of Jilek v Stockson, 490 Mich 961 (2011), implicitly overruled Reeves v Carson City Hosp (On Remand), 274 Mich App 622; 736 NW2d 284 (2007).

For these reasons, I concur in the majority opinion, but encourage our Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity in this complex area of law.

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra

-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Do, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-linda-horn-v-michael-j-swofford-do-michctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack