Court Opinion

ID: 9658449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:00:23.343723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:55.327391
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
We adopt the facts of this case as they are presented by our brother Burns in his dissent.
There is a difference of opinion among judges of the Court of Appeals as to whether the require*616ment of the R. Hood-McNeely-Geake Malpractice Arbitration Act (MAA), MCL 600.5040 et seq.; MSA 27A.5040 et seq., that one member of the three-member arbitration panel be a hospital administrator or physician violates a patient’s due process rights. Two recent cases from this Court addressed this issue and held that that requirement does not infringe unconstitutionally upon the due process right to a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal. See Judge Cynar’s opinion in Morris v Metriyakool, 107 Mich App 110; 309 NW2d 910 (1981), and Brown v Siang, 107 Mich App 91; 309 NW2d 575 (1981).
We find the reasoning in Brown, supra, to present the better view on the issue sub judice. Based upon the reasoning presented there and in Morris, supra, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
Affirmed.
R. H. Campbell, J., concurred.