 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Villa Elizabeth--Butterworth9/24/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of Margaret White, appeals from the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary disposition. We affirm.
I. Facts and Proceedings
In August 1995, plaintiff sought the services of defendant for care of her mother, Margaret White. She eventually signed an admission agreement provided by defendant, and her mother was admitted to defendant's care. White's health began to deteriorate and in April 1997, she was taken to the emergency room at St. Mary's Health Center, where she was provisionally diagnosed with presumptive sepsis, urinary tract infection, presumptive pneumonia, and dehydration. White was later admitted to St. Mary's Assisted Living Center. She died on June 13, 1997.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant in October 1999 alleging breach of contract, exemplary damages, fraudulent misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation. The essence of plaintiff's suit was that defendant had failed to provide care in accordance with the admission agreement, which included providing "routine nursing services" and "nursing care and treatment." In its first motion for summary disposition, defendant claimed that plaintiff's suit was actually one for medical malpractice and because plaintiff had not filed the required affidavit of merit, the suit should be dismissed. Additionally, defendant argued that even if plaintiff's claims were in fact based in contract, plaintiff had failed to provide a writing that satisfied the statute of frauds since only plaintiff had signed the admission agreement. The trial court found that plaintiff had not pleaded a contract cause of action and granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.
Plaintiff's amended complaint asserted the same claims as the original complaint, but phrased the claims differently. Defendant again moved for summary disposition, arguing that the issue was still one of the standard of care provided to White and, alternately, that the document did not satisfy the statute of frauds. The trial court granted defendant's motion based on its conclusion that plaintiff's suit was a medical malpractice suit "thinly disguised" as a breach of contract action. Having reached this conclusion, the court did not address defendant's statute of frauds argument. This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition de novo. Mack v City of Detroit, ___ Mich ___; 649 NW2d 47; 51 (2002). The trial court based its decision on MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims based on the pleadings alone, id., while a motion based on MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. Steward v Panek, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 222847, decided 6/4/02), slip op at 5-6.
Whether a document satisfies the statute of frauds is an issue of law subject to de novo review. In re Stotzke Estate, 216 Mich App 247, 252; 548 NW2d 695 (1996).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff first asserts that the trial court erroneously decided that her breach of contract claim was actually one for medical malpractice. Assuming without deciding that plaintiff's claim was based in contract, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's breach of contract claim because she has not presented a writing that satisfies the statute of frauds.
The statute of frauds provides, in part:
(1) In the following cases an agreement, contract, or promise is void unless that agreement, contract, or promise, or a note or mem
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|