Court Opinion

ID: 9572557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:47.267158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:29.140295
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority’s analysis of the primary issue presented, but would decline for two reasons to address the issue whether Meyer’s original health care policy was properly terminated. First, our review is limited to those issues actually decided by the lower court. Thus, review is inappropriate in this case. Chilingirian v City of Fraser, 194 Mich App 65, 71; 486 NW2d 347 (1992). Second, in view of the parties’ stipulation concerning Meyer’s eligibility for Medicare and the resulting termination of her health insurance policy, the issue is moot. Crawford Co v Secretary of State, 160 Mich App 88, 93; 408 NW2d 112 (1987).
In light of the paucity of judicial resources in the face of a burgeoning appellate docket, it behooves this Court to reserve appellate review for the questions properly before this Court._