FRIEDMAN V. DOZORC
Sup. Ct. Mich., 412 Mich. 1, 312 N.W.2d 585 (1981)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Friedman (P) sought review of that part of the judgment of the Court
of Appeals that dismissed P's causes of action for negligence and abuse of process in
connection with the litigation of a medical malpractice action against him.
FACTS: Leona Serafin was treated for gynecological problems. A dilatation and curettage
was performed by her physician, Dr. Harold Krevsky. She was referred to Dr. Friedman, (P)
for urological consultation. P recommended surgical removal of a kidney stone which was too
large to pass, and the operation was performed on May 20, 1970. During the surgery, the
patient began to ooze blood uncontrollably. Mrs. Serafin's condition continued to worsen and
she died five days after the surgery. The cause of death as thrombotic thrombocytopenic
purpura, a rare and uniformly fatal blood disease, the cause and cure of which are unknown.
Attorneys Dozorc and Golden (Ds) filed a malpractice action. Ds presented no expert
testimony. The judge entered a directed verdict of no cause of action in favor of D and the
judge subsequently denied a motion for costs brought by codefendant Peoples Community
Hospital. The Court of Appeals affirmed and this Court denied leave to appeal. D commenced
the present action on March 17, 1976 in Oakland Circuit Court for negligence, malicious
prosecution and abuse of process Ds. For damages P alleged the cost of defending the
lawsuit, an increase in his annual malpractice insurance premiums for so long as he
practices medicine, the loss of two young associates from his office who could no longer
afford to pay the increased malpractice insurance premiums thereby requiring him to work
excessive hours without relief, damages to his reputation as a physician and surgeon,
embarrassment and continued mental anguish.' Ds moved for summary judgment. The judge
granted the motion. It reasoned that P had failed to state a cause of action for negligence
because there was 'no relationship other than that of adversaries' between Ds and P and
hence there was 'no duty owing'; and the refusal of the trial judge in the prior action to
find that the claims advanced by Ds on behalf of their client were unreasonable and should
render them responsible under GCR 1963, 111.6 for litigation expenses of their opponents
established that the prior action was brought with probable cause and therefore precluded a
subsequent action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal insofar as it was based on failure to state a claim on the theories
of negligence and abuse of process. It reversed the dismissal of the cause of action
sounding in malicious prosecution and remanded this cause to the trial court, declaring that
an adverse ruling on a defendant's motion under GCR 111.6 did not bar a subsequent malicious
prosecution action and that the facts surrounding the filing and continuation of the prior
action were in dispute. Ds appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment