Court Opinion

ID: 9654430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:20:09.318076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:09.136051
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring). I agree with parts I and m of the majority opinion. However, I would not reach the constitutional issue because, as we have stated previously, “there exists a general presumption by this Court that we will not reach constitutional issues that are not necessary to resolve a case.” Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d 422 (1993); Taylor v Auditor General, 360 Mich 146, 154; 103 NW2d 769 (1960).
Additionally, I write separately to note that because the majority remands the case on the dual-agency the*73ory, we have not addressed plaintiffs concerns regarding informed consent. As she noted in her brief, plaintiff’s decedent had no notice that Dr. Sauer was an agent, at least in one capacity, of Michigan State University and was shielded by governmental immunity. This is especially true where, here, she was being treated at a private hospital. While a statute typically puts one on notice of governmental immunity, this plaintiff did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the physician who was treating her was not a private physician, but instead was a Michigan State University physician cloaked with immunity.
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.