Bates v. Gilbert, Docket No. 129564.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2006
• Docket Number: Docket No. 129570.,Docket No. 129565.,COA No. 252792.,Docket No. 129572.,Docket No. 129564.,Docket No. 129567.,COA No. 252022.,COA No. 252047.,Docket No. 129566.,Docket No. 129569.,Docket No. 129571.,COA No. 252793.
• Citation: 722 N.W.2d 433,477 Mich. 894
• Parties: Joeann BATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Sidney GILBERT, Defendant-Appellee, and D & R Optical Corporation, d/b/a Health Center Optical, Defendant-Appellant. Joeann Bates, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Dr. Sidney Gilbert, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and D & R Optical Corporation, d/b/a Health Center Optical, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 433

722 N.W.2d 433

477 Mich. 894

Joeann BATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Sidney GILBERT, Defendant-Appellee, and D & R Optical Corporation, d/b/a Health Center Optical, Defendant-Appellant.

Joeann Bates, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Dr. Sidney Gilbert, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and D & R Optical Corporation, d/b/a Health Center Optical, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee.

Docket No. 129564.

Docket No. 129565.

Docket No. 129566.

Docket No. 129567.

Docket No. 129569.

Docket No. 129570.

Docket No. 129571.

Docket No. 129572.

COA No. 252022.

COA No. 252047.

COA No. 252792.

COA No. 252793.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

October 25, 2006.

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1)(a)-(d) are satisfied if: (1) a plaintiff files a single affidavit of merit that is signed by a health professional who plaintiff's counsel reasonably believes is qualified under MCL 600.2169 to address the standard of care, but who is not also qualified to address causation; or (2) a plaintiff files a single affidavit of merit that is signed by a health professional who plaintiff's counsel reasonably believes is qualified under § 2169 to address causation, but who is not also qualified to address the standard of care. The parties shall also address whether § 2912d(1) permits or requires a plaintiff to file multiple affidavits, signed by different health professionals, when a single health professional is not qualified under § 2169 to testify about both the standard of care and causation. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in their application papers.