ESTATE OF HENRY C ROHDE V GOPI NALLANI (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS VALERIE J. ROHDE, Personal Representative for the Estate of HENRY C. ROHDE, UNPUBLISHED February 19, 2013 Plaintiff-Appellant, v GOPI NALLANI, M.D., ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, P.C., BRENT J. RAAP, D.O., BRENT J. RAAP, D.O., P.C., STANDISH COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a ST. MARY S OF MICHIGAN STANDISH HOSPITAL, No. 308773 Arenac Circuit Court LC No. 11-011675-NH Defendants-Appellees, and NORTHERN BAY HEALTH CARE, L.L.C., and DORAISAMY VENKITAPATHY, M.D., Defendants. Before: SAWYER, P.J., and MARKEY and M. J. KELLY, JJ. SAWYER, P.J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that there was a question of fact as to whether Mr. Rohde knew or should have known about his cause of action and that a jury could find that his complaint was timely filed within the six-month period provided under MCL 600.5838a(2). I disagree. The facts are clear and straightforward. Mr. Rohde was first told by Dr. Venkitapathy on October 15, 2008, that there was something on his right lung and that he needed to follow up with his primary care physician, Dr. Raap. On December 24, 2008, he was given a full physical examination by Dr. Raap. He was told that he had a lung mass. Mr. Rohde testified he recalled having a discussion with Dr. Raap about his medical condition and the results of the October 15, 2008, x-ray, but just did not recall the specific details. Dr. Raap testified that he advised Mr. Rohde that a CT scan with contrast had been scheduled for January 15, 2009, and that there was a possibility of cancer because the -1- lung mass was suspicious. Mr. Rohde never showed up for the CT scan and on January 27, 2009, contacted Dr. Raap s office by telephone, complaining of his bill and firing him. While Mr. Rohde did testify that he did not recall the details of the conversation, plaintiff has produced no evidence that contradicts defendant s version of events. Therefore, I believe the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of all defendants because he should have been aware of his potential claim at the latest in 2008. If he had exercised any diligence, he would have discovered the cancer. I therefore would affirm. /s/ David H. Sawyer -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.
