NADINE DANIELS V SINAI HOSP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NADINE DANIELS, Personal Representative of the
Estate of ROBERT DANIELS, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
October 31, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 215592
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-737340-NH
SINAI HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN DOE, D.O., and JANE DOE, R.N.,
Defendants-Not Participating.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Cavanagh and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash
service of process, and dismissing the case. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On November 19, 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and naming as
defendants Sinai Hospital, John Doe, D.O., and Jane Doe, R.N. A separate summons was issued for
each defendant. On or about February 17, 1998, copies of the complaint and the summons directed to
Sinai Hospital were delivered to the registered agent for Sinai Hospital Medical Staff Education
Corporation, an entity separate from Sinai Hospital. On the same date copies of the complaint and the
summons directed to Jane Doe, R.N. were delivered to the registered agent for Sinai Hospital. On
February 19, 1998, Sinai Hospital received a copy of the complaint and the summons directed to it.
Sinai Hospital moved to quash service on the ground that it was never served with process as
provided by the court rules. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that Sinai Hospital was
not served with the correct summons prior to the expiration of the summons.
-1
We review a trial court’s decision to grant a motion to quash for an abuse of discretion. See
Bush v Beemer, 224 Mich App 457, 466; 569 NW2d 636 (1997).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Sinai Hospital’s motion to
quash, and dismissing the case. We disagree and affirm. Although the hospital was served with a copy
of the complaint during the life of the summons, it did not receive the summons directed to it. The
summons informs the defendant that an action has been commenced, and advises the defendant of his
rights and duties. MCR 2.102(B). Although MCR 2.105(J)(3) provides that “[a]n action shall not be
dismissed for improper service of process unless the service failed to inform the defendant of the action
within the time provided in these rules for service,” that rule assumes that the correct summons will be
served with the complaint. See Holliday v Townley, 189 Mich App 424, 425-426; 473 NW2d 733
(1991). Because the wrong summons was provided, Sinai Hospital did not receive the requisite notice
that it was being sued prior to the expiration of the summons. MCR 2.105(J)(3) does not excuse a
failure of service.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
