# Moy v. Detroit Receiving Hospital

> Michigan Court of Appeals · April 6, 1988 · 169 Mich. App. 600

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691368

## Case

- **Full name:** Moy v. Detroit Receiving Hospital
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 6, 1988
- **Citations:** 169 Mich. App. 600; 426 N.W.2d 722
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shepherd
- **Judges:** Shepherd, Gillis, Latreille
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691368

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting a challenge to an order granting summary disposition on the basis that the movants failed to identify the specific subrule under which they sought summary disposition

## Opinion text

Shepherd, P.J.
(dissenting). I dissent for the reason that I believe plaintiff should be given the opportunity at trial to establish his prima facie case of medical malpractice through the testimony of the individual defendants. In Beattie v Firnschild, 152 Mich App 785 ; 394 NW2d 107 (1986), cited in the majority opinion, it appears that the defendant had no knowledge before trial that he was to be called as an expert witness. In the instant case defense counsel was put on notice *608 that defendants would be called as experts, and there would therefore be no surprise if this case were to go to trial. I do not believe that the trial judge abused his discretion in preventing additional experts from being called, but where a plaintiff claims that he or she can prove malpractice through the testimony of the defendants and where the defendants have adequate notice that they will be called during the course of plaintiff’s case, it is my view that the trial court should allow the matter to go to trial. Another alternative would be to order the plaintiff to take the defendants’ depositions prior to trial to test whether defendants will admit to a violation of the appropriate standard of care. I do not believe that the drastic remedy of summary disposition is appropriate in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691368. Public record. Not legal advice.