DAVID WOODS V BENN GILMORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID WOODS and JULIE WOODS,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 1998
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
BENN GILMORE, M.D., BENN GILMORE, M.D.,
P.C., d/b/a EARS NOSE & THROAT INSTITUTE
and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
No. 198147
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-519230 NH
Defendants,
and
SINAI HOSPITAL, d/b/a SINAI SURGERY
CENTER OF FARMINGTON HILLS,
Defendant-Appellant.
DAVID WOODS and JULIE WOODS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
BENN GILMORE, M.D., and BENN GILMORE,
M.D., P.C., d/b/a EARS NOSE & THROAT
INSTITUTE,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
No. 198157
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-519230 NH
SINAI HOSPITAL, d/b/a SINAI SURGERY
CENTER OF FARMINGTON HILLS, and
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and MacKenzie and N.O. Holowka*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
By leave granted, defendants challenge denial of their motions for summary dismissal of
plaintiffs’ medical malpractice action, without prejudice, for failure of plaintiffs to comply with the notice
requirements of MCL 600.2912b; MSA 27A.2912(2). Further proceedings in the trial court were
stayed pending this Court’s decision of related issues in another case, which decision has now been
rendered, Neal v Oakwood Hospital Corp, 226 Mich App 701; ___ NW2d ___ (1997). We now
reverse and remand. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
The equal protection and due process arguments raised by plaintiffs as a challenge to
implementation of the statute, US Const, Am XIV, § 1, Const 1963, art 1, §§ 2 and 17, were
considered in detail and rejected in Neal, supra at 716-721. Accordingly, denial of the motions to
dismiss was erroneous.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Neal,
supra. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Nick O. Holowka
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
