MAHMOUD AL-HADIDI MD V KEITH M STEVENS DO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MAHMOUD AL-HADIDI, M.D.,
UNPUBLISHED
July 26, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
KEITH M. STEVENS, D.O., RICHARD
HERBERT, D.O., PULMONARY & CRITICAL
CARE, and WILLIAM BEAUMONT
HOSPITAL-TROY,
No. 229451
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 00-022227-NZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Cavanagh and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order granting defendants summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4). We affirm.
We review de novo the circuit court’s summary disposition ruling. Spiek v Dep’t of
Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). The record indicates that in
granting summary disposition, the circuit court relied on the principle of nonreviewability of
private hospitals’ staffing decisions, which is set forth in Hoffman v Garden City HospitalOsteopathic, 115 Mich App 773; 321 NW2d 810 (1982), and its progeny.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that because the instant case involves malice, the circuit court
erred in determining that MCL 331.531 provided immunity against his claims. Plaintiff’s
argument is misplaced, however, because the circuit court did not base its decision on the
immunity conferred by MCL 331.531. That statute’s malicious conduct exception to immunity
had no bearing on the circuit court’s decision. Furthermore, neither Hoffman nor its progeny
suggest that allegations of malice in violation of MCL 331.531 affect the analysis whether claims
relating to staffing decisions are subject to judicial review. Because plaintiff fails to address the
basis for the circuit court’s decision, we conclude that appellate relief is not warranted. Roberts
-1-
& Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413
NW2d 744 (1987).1
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
To the extent that plaintiff suggested in his brief on appeal that the circuit court had jurisdiction
over this case because defendants violated federal statutory procedure governing professional
review actions, we note that plaintiff’s complaint alleged no specific statutory violations
whatsoever and that plaintiff failed to provide any controlling authority supporting his position.
See Sherman v Sea Ray Boats, Inc, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 227450,
issued 4/26/02), slip op. at 9 (explaining that a party may not leave it to this Court to search for
authority to sustain or reject its position).
-2-
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.
