Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

126980 & (80) Michael F. Cavanagh 

127032 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JOSEPH STAMPLIS and THEODORA 

Stephen J. Markman, STAMPLIS, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 126980 

 COA: 241801 

St. Clair CC: 01-001051-NH 

ST. JOHN HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a

RIVER DISTRICT HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

G. PHILLIP DOUGLASS, 

Defendant-Appellee,

and 

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a 

HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, et al

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

JOSEPH STAMPLIS and THEODORA 

STAMPLIS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 127032 

 COA: 241801 

St. Clair CC: 01-001051-NH 

ST. JOHN HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a

RIVER DISTRICT HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellee,

and 

G. PHILLIP DOUGLASS, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a 

HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, et al

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

On December 15, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on the applications for 

leave to appeal the June 1, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the 

Court, the motion to disqualify is DENIED. The applications for leave to appeal are 

again considered, and they are GRANTED. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties are directed 

to include among the issues briefed the impact, if any, of the 1995 amendment of MCL 

600.2925d on the current viability of Theophelis v Lansing General Hospital, 430 Mich 

473 (1988). 

The Michigan Trial Lawyers Association and Michigan Defense Trial Counsel are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the questions presented in this case may move the Court for permission 

to file briefs amicus curiae. 

KELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and states as follows: 

While I agree to grant leave to appeal, I do not participate in the decision to deny 

the motion to disqualify. I agree with Justice Weaver in urging the Court to establish a 

particularized procedure to handle motions to disqualify a Supreme Court Justice from 

participation in a case. 

WEAVER, J., not participating in the decision regarding the motion to disqualify 

Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman, dissents and states as 

follows: 

I am opposed to the entry of any order in this case at this time and would hold this 

case in abeyance until this Court publishes proposals for public comment, places the issue 

on a public hearing for administrative matters, resolves, and makes clear for all to know 

the proper procedures for handling motions for the disqualification of Supreme Court 

Justices from participation in a case. This Court opened an administrative file on the 

question on May 20, 2003, but has yet to address the matter further. See ADM 2003-26. 

The question regarding the participation or nonparticipation of Justices frequently 

recurs and is a matter of public significance because even one Justice’s decision to 

participate or not participate can affect the decision and outcome in a case. See Advocacy 

Org for Patients & Providers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 472 Mich 91 (2005) (Weaver, J., 

concurring). 

d0124 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 27, 2006 

Clerk