Court Opinion

ID: 9671007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:29:25.532587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.682899
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I agree with the opinion of the majority insofar as it holds that plaintiffs’ waiver was not rendered ineffective because the agreement fails to provide a more detailed statement of the procedures used in arbitration. However, I would follow Brown v Siang, 107 Mich App 91; 309 NW2d 575 (1981), and Morris v Metriyakool, 107 Mich App 110; 309 NW2d 910 (1981), lv gtd 412 Mich 884 (1981), and rule that the medical malpractice arbitration act does not violate plaintiffs’ right to a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal. I would affirm on this issue.