RUEL FILES V SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RUEL FILES, Personal Representative of the
Estate of MARTHA LEE, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
November 1, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
and
DETROIT
No. 233827
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-029347-NH
Defendants-Appellees,
and
FOUR JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order dismissing her complaint for failure
to file an affidavit of merit that complied with MCL 600.2912d(1). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
A plaintiff filing a medical malpractice action is required to file “an affidavit of merit
signed by a health professional who the plaintiff’s attorney reasonably believes meets the
requirements for an expert witness under section 2169.” MCL 600.2912d(1). Section 2169
requires that an expert be licensed as a health professional. If the party against whom he testifies
is a specialist, the expert must specialize in the same field. If the party against whom he testifies
is a board-certified specialist, the expert must be board-certified in the same specialty. MCL
600.2169(1)(a). In addition, the expert must devote the majority of his professional time to the
practice or teaching of the same health profession or specialty as practiced by the party against
whom he testifies. MCL 600.2169(1)(b), (c).
Plaintiff filed an affidavit of merit from a board-certified internist, Arnold Markowitz,
who opined that the hospital staff in general were negligent for failing to diagnose and treat
Lee’s urinary tract infection. Although plaintiff sued only the hospital and its parent corporation,
his expert must still meet the requirements of § 2169 as to each individual health professional
-1-
alleged to have rendered negligent treatment. Nippa v Botsford General Hosp, __ Mich App __;
__ NW2d __ (2002); Tobin v Providence Hosp, 244 Mich App 626, 660 n 16, 671; 624 NW2d
548 (2001).
The John Does alleged to be at fault were subsequently identified as two surgeons and a
urologist. Because plaintiff never alleged that an internist in defendants’ employ was responsible
for diagnosing and treating Lee’s condition, plaintiff’s counsel could not have reasonably
believed that Markowitz’s affidavit complied with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Vincencio v Jaime
Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501, 506; 536 NW2d 280 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
