Case Name: June Y. GALLIVAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Loren Alex Gallivan, Phyllis E. Briggs, Karla Rae Jamieson, and Vernon L. Duff, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. DBMJ REHABILITATION SERVICES PLLC, d/b/a Neuromuscular and Rehabilitation Associates of Northern Michigan, Stephen Andriese, M.D., James R. MacKenzie, M.D., and Richard Ball, M.D., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Tracey Riddle, D.O., and Julie Gronek, M.D., Defendants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2018-07-03
Citations: 913 N.W.2d 655
Docket Number: SC: 156912; COA: 331832
Parties: June Y. GALLIVAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Loren Alex Gallivan, Phyllis E. Briggs, Karla Rae Jamieson, and Vernon L. Duff, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
DBMJ REHABILITATION SERVICES PLLC, d/b/a Neuromuscular and Rehabilitation Associates of Northern Michigan, Stephen Andriese, M.D., James R. MacKenzie, M.D., and Richard Ball, M.D., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
and
Tracey Riddle, D.O., and Julie Gronek, M.D., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 913
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
June Y. GALLIVAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Loren Alex Gallivan, Phyllis E. Briggs, Karla Rae Jamieson, and Vernon L. Duff, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
DBMJ REHABILITATION SERVICES PLLC, d/b/a Neuromuscular and Rehabilitation Associates of Northern Michigan, Stephen Andriese, M.D., James R. MacKenzie, M.D., and Richard Ball, M.D., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
and
Tracey Riddle, D.O., and Julie Gronek, M.D., Defendants.
SC: 156912
COA: 331832
Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 3, 2018
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2017 judgment order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is therefore moot and is DENIED.