Stein v. Southeastern Michigan Family Planning Project, Inc
Stein v. Southeastern Michigan Family Planning Project, Inc.
Subsequent history: rev'd, Stein v. Southeastern Mich. Family Planning Project, Inc., 438 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1989). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs, Catherine Stein, also known as Catherine Sudat, and her husband, Mi *703 ehael Stein, appeal from a circuit court order granting summary disposition to defendant Wayne County General Hospital.
On the authority of Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986), we affirm the entry of summary disposition for defendant on plaintiffs’ malpractice claim. The fact that defendant did not raise the "defense” of governmental immunity until after Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), was decided does not make the rules articulated in Ross inapplicable to this case. Plaintiffs’ previously filed complaint alleged sufficient facts to raise a governmental immunity issue.
Hyde, supra, p 236, n 7 .
We have considered plaintiffs’ arguments that granting immunity to public hospitals deprives patients of equal protection and due process. In Ross, supra, and Hyde, supra, the Supreme Court considered, and rejected, the public policy and fairness claims raised by plaintiffs concerning the substantive issue of immunity and the procedural issue of retroactivity. See, e.g., Ross, supra, pp 618-619 , and Hyde, supra, pp 238-240, 244 . In light of Ross and Hyde , plaintiffs’ arguments should be addressed to the Supreme Court which, we are persuaded, would not find unconstitutional the disparate treatment of public and private hospitals. See Hyde, supra, p 244, n 15 .
Plaintiffs challenge the denial of their motion to amend their complaint to allege defendant’s breach of contract. The absence of a writing signed by an authorized representative of defendant and containing the essential terms of the alleged contract is fatal to plaintiffs’ contract claim. MCL 566.132(g); MSA 26.922(g);
Gilmore v O’Sullivan, 106 Mich App 35 ; 307 NW2d 695 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 851 (1982).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.