Case Name: Michael BAK, THROUGH his representative Patricia HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EASTPOINTE RADIOLOGISTS, P.C and Michael P. Trpkovski, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, and Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation d/b/a Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, Great Lakes Medicine, PLLC, Professional Emergency Care, P.C., David S. Weingarden & Associates, P.C., Jonathan Beaulac, D.O., Monica Beszka, D.O., Nicholas Doman, D.O., Ayman Founas, D.O., Jason C. Muir, D.O., Prashant Shanti Patel, M.D., Salvador Rojas, III, M.D., Isaac Turner, M.D., and Abby M. Waterfield, D.O., Defendants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2018-07-03
Citations: 913 N.W.2d 656
Docket Number: SC: 157213; COA: 341457
Parties: Michael BAK, THROUGH his representative Patricia HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EASTPOINTE RADIOLOGISTS, P.C and Michael P. Trpkovski, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,
and
Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation d/b/a Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, Great Lakes Medicine, PLLC, Professional Emergency Care, P.C., David S. Weingarden & Associates, P.C., Jonathan Beaulac, D.O., Monica Beszka, D.O., Nicholas Doman, D.O., Ayman Founas, D.O., Jason C. Muir, D.O., Prashant Shanti Patel, M.D., Salvador Rojas, III, M.D., Isaac Turner, M.D., and Abby M. Waterfield, D.O., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 913
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Michael BAK, THROUGH his representative Patricia HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EASTPOINTE RADIOLOGISTS, P.C and Michael P. Trpkovski, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,
and
Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation d/b/a Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, Great Lakes Medicine, PLLC, Professional Emergency Care, P.C., David S. Weingarden & Associates, P.C., Jonathan Beaulac, D.O., Monica Beszka, D.O., Nicholas Doman, D.O., Ayman Founas, D.O., Jason C. Muir, D.O., Prashant Shanti Patel, M.D., Salvador Rojas, III, M.D., Isaac Turner, M.D., and Abby M. Waterfield, D.O., Defendants.
SC: 157213
COA: 341457
Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 3, 2018
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.