Case Name: Jenny Nasyelly PEREZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Aura Argentina Perez, and Ruben Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and Daniel Morris, M.D., Dr. Frank McGeorge, Dr. Olesya Krivospitskaya, Dr. Tarek Toubia, Dr. Michelle Slezak, Dr. Gregory Hays, Dr. Heather Evanson, Dr. E. Jenkins Brown, Dr. Denise Leung, Dr. Laurie Rolland, Vivek Rai, M.D., Dr. Andrew Russman, Dr. Sathyavani Ramanujam, and Dr. Asha Shajahan, Defendants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-09-18
Citations: 932 N.W.2d 782
Docket Number: SC: 159170; COA: 340082
Parties: Jenny Nasyelly PEREZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Aura Argentina Perez, and Ruben Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
and
Daniel Morris, M.D., Dr. Frank McGeorge, Dr. Olesya Krivospitskaya, Dr. Tarek Toubia, Dr. Michelle Slezak, Dr. Gregory Hays, Dr. Heather Evanson, Dr. E. Jenkins Brown, Dr. Denise Leung, Dr. Laurie Rolland, Vivek Rai, M.D., Dr. Andrew Russman, Dr. Sathyavani Ramanujam, and Dr. Asha Shajahan, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 932
Pages: 782–782

Head Matter:
Jenny Nasyelly PEREZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Aura Argentina Perez, and Ruben Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
and
Daniel Morris, M.D., Dr. Frank McGeorge, Dr. Olesya Krivospitskaya, Dr. Tarek Toubia, Dr. Michelle Slezak, Dr. Gregory Hays, Dr. Heather Evanson, Dr. E. Jenkins Brown, Dr. Denise Leung, Dr. Laurie Rolland, Vivek Rai, M.D., Dr. Andrew Russman, Dr. Sathyavani Ramanujam, and Dr. Asha Shajahan, Defendants.
SC: 159170
COA: 340082
Supreme Court of Michigan.
September 18, 2019
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.