FRANCIS A KRCMARIK V AUBURN COUNSELING ASSOC INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CAROL GRAGG, Personal Representative of the
Estate of JEFFREY GRAGG, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
AUBURN COUNSELING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DALE PETERSON, DR. Y.K. LEE, and DR.
CHARLES WILLIAMS,
No. 222882
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 97-059717-NI
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ELENORE MARIE YOUNG,
Defendant-Not Participating.
_________________________________________
FRANCIS A. KRCMARIK, Conservator of the
Estate of ELEANORE YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
AUBURN COUNSELING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
and DALE PETERSON a/k/a DALE
PETTERSON,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DR. Y.K. LEE,
Defendant,
and
-1-
No. 228860
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 97-059156-NH
DR. CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Not Participating.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Gage and Murray, JJ.
Murray, J. (concurring.)
I fully concur in the Court’s opinion. I write separately, however, to express my view
that had we not decided the issue of plaintiff Krcmarik’s ability to recover damages for injuries
Young received in the automobile accident on causation grounds, I would still hold that plaintiff
Krcmarik would not be entitled to recover damages in the medical malpractice action for injuries
which Young suffered as a result of the automobile accident because of the wrongful conduct
rule. Orzel v Sott Drug Co., 449 Mich 550; 537 NW2d 208 (1995). This is so because plaintiff
Krcmarik would have to prove as part of the medical malpractice claim that an injury was
suffered as a result of the alleged malpractice, MCL 600.2912a, and therefore, to recover
damages associated with any injuries received in the automobile accident plaintiff Krcmarik by
necessity would have to put into evidence the fact of the accident. As such, proof that Young
was driving on a suspended license would be a part of the case, thus implicating the wrongful
conduct rule. See Poch v Anderson, 229 Mich App 40, 44; 580 NW2d 456 (1998). The
Supreme Court has not addressed this precise issue despite having the opportunity to do so,
Mathews v Wyant, 465 Mich 853, 854; 629 NW2d 926 (2001) (Markman, J., dissenting), and this
Court also had no need to address the issue in this case because this Court has concluded on
other grounds that plaintiff Krcmarik is not entitled to recover any damages arising from
Young’s involvement in the car accident. Hence, I concur in the Court’s opinion.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
