––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted February 19, 2010
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
High court splits 4-3 on new malpractice rule

LANSING (AP) -- A divided Michigan Supreme Court has issued an order creating new deadlines for health care providers being sued for malpractice.
Republican Elizabeth Weaver joined Democrats Marilyn Kelly, Michael Cavanagh and Diane Hathaway in supporting the change in the order issued Wednesday.
Republicans Maura Corrigan, Robert Young and Stephen Markman opposed the change.
The order means those accused of malpractice must challenge a notice of intent to sue within 63 days.
Markman says the rule conflicts with a 2007 malpractice decision and says it's usually bad for the court to reverse its own precedents. Kelly says the change brings malpractice cases into line with other civil suits.
--------------
On the Net:
New malpractice rule: http://www.filetolink.com/cd4a18af
Published: Fri, Feb 19, 2010
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- This LA lawyer levels up legal protections in the video game industry
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Legal champions to receive Spirit of Excellence Award at 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
- Fake Sullivan & Cromwell entities used by scammers should be dissolved, suit says
- Hackers gained access to ‘small number’ of attorney emails at Williams & Connolly, firm confirms
- Before joining Anderson Kill, judge was accused of rude behavior on bench, retaliatory threats in ethics case