Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134799 & (89) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DANIEL A. YOUNG, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of PATRICIA

J. YOUNG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 134799 

 COA: 266261 

Oakland CC: 2003-049093-NH 

PARTHA SHANKER NANDI, M.D.,

SANTE BOLOGNA, M.D., and CENTER 

FOR DIGESTIVE HEALTH, a/k/a TROY 

GASTROENTEROLOGY, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees/ 

Cross-Appellants, 

and 

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL-TROY, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellants are considered. The application for leave to appeal is DENIED, because we 

are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. With 

respect to the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants, pursuant to MCR 

7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE only that part of the Court 

of Appeals judgment that held that the trial court properly denied the defendants' request 

for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiff's favor as case evaluation sanctions 

under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary. 

We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for a hearing on the subject of a 

reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008). In all 

other respects, the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants is DENIED, because 

we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

I concur in all respects in the Court’s order denying leave to appeal and remanding 

the case for an evidentiary hearing on the attorney fee award. I specifically concur in the 

denial of plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal because the Court of Appeals correctly 

held that the higher noneconomic damages cap found in MCL 600.1483(1) does not 

apply to plaintiff’s wrongful death action. I disagree, however, with the basis for the 

Court of Appeals holding. The Court of Appeals held that while the higher noneconomic 

damages cap may apply to wrongful death actions, in this case plaintiff failed to satisfy 

the statutory requirements for application of the higher cap. 

I continue to adhere to the principles cited in my partial dissenting opinion in 

Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 471 Mich 540, 582-597 (2004), that the plain language of 

MCL 600.1483(1) prohibits the application of the higher noneconomic damages cap to all 

wrongful death actions. 

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

l0930 

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. 

October 3, 2008 

Clerk