Court Opinion

ID: 9693346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:38:10.678925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.355899
License: Public Domain

R. A. Benson, J.
In this medical malpractice case the trial court granted the defendants’ motions for accelerated judgment on the basis of lack of jurisdiction due to an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals by right.
Plaintiff first argues that the medical malpractice arbitration act, MCL 600.5040 et seq.; MSA 27A.5040 et seq., violates the plaintiffs due process rights to a fair and impartial tribunal because the statute requires that one of the three arbitrators be a physician or hospital administrator. There is currently a split of opinion on this Court as to whether the act is constitutional. Compare Murray v Wilner, 118 Mich App 352; 325 NW2d 422 (1982), and Jackson v Detroit Memorial Hospital, 110 Mich App 202; 312 NW2d 212 (1981), lv gtd 412 *735Mich 885 (1981), with Cushman v Frankel, 111 Mich App 604; 314 NW2d 705 (1981); Williams v O’Connor, 108 Mich App 613; 310 NW2d 825 (1981), and Morris v Metriyakool, 107 Mich App 110; 309 NW2d 910 (1981), lv gtd 412 Mich 884 (1981) . We hope this split will soon be resolved by the Supreme Court in its consideration of Morris and Jackson. We are of the opinion that the reasoning set forth in Jackson, supra, and Murray, supra, is the better view and thus conclude that the act unconstitutionally deprives the plaintiff of his due process right to a fair and impartial tribunal.
Plaintiffs remaining, issues on appeal are without merit. The terms of the agreement do not unconscionably exceed the reasonable expectations of an ordinary person. See Morris, supra, p 115. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement is not a contract of adhesion. Brown v Siang, 107 Mich App 91; 309 NW2d 575 (1981); Morris, supra, p 115.
Reversed.