Case Name: Heather SAMMUT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Sammut, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sanjay BATRA, MD, Sanjay Batra, MD, PC, James R. Martin, MD, and James R. Martin, MD, PC, Defendants-Appellants, and St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital, Macomb Center, a/k/a St. John Providence Health System, Vamshidar Guduguntla, MD, Kishan Jasti, MD, Eastside Cardiovascular Medicine, PC, Gina Colontino, DO, Advanced Cardiovascular Associates, PLC, Mark Boik, RRT, Cheryl Ann Klassa, RNP, Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD and Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD, PC, Defendants.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-02-13
Citations: 922 N.W.2d 370
Docket Number: SC: 159037; COA: 345254
Parties: Heather SAMMUT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Sammut, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Sanjay BATRA, MD, Sanjay Batra, MD, PC, James R. Martin, MD, and James R. Martin, MD, PC, Defendants-Appellants,
and
St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital, Macomb Center, a/k/a St. John Providence Health System, Vamshidar Guduguntla, MD, Kishan Jasti, MD, Eastside Cardiovascular Medicine, PC, Gina Colontino, DO, Advanced Cardiovascular Associates, PLC, Mark Boik, RRT, Cheryl Ann Klassa, RNP, Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD and Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD, PC, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 922
Pages: 370–370

Head Matter:
Heather SAMMUT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Sammut, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Sanjay BATRA, MD, Sanjay Batra, MD, PC, James R. Martin, MD, and James R. Martin, MD, PC, Defendants-Appellants,
and
St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital, Macomb Center, a/k/a St. John Providence Health System, Vamshidar Guduguntla, MD, Kishan Jasti, MD, Eastside Cardiovascular Medicine, PC, Gina Colontino, DO, Advanced Cardiovascular Associates, PLC, Mark Boik, RRT, Cheryl Ann Klassa, RNP, Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD and Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, MD, PC, Defendants.
SC: 159037
COA: 345254
Supreme Court of Michigan.
February 13, 2019
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2019 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.