exact nature claim in Michigan

2022In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), our Supreme Court articulated a test to determine whether a claim, regardless of how it was pleaded, was actually a medical malpractice action: [A] court must ask two fundamental questions in determining whether a claim sounds in ordinary negligence or medical malpractice: (1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience.

2022In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), our Supreme Court articulated a test to determine whether a claim, regardless of how it was pleaded, was actually a medical malpractice action: [A] court must ask two fundamental questions in determining whether a claim sounds in ordinary negligence or medical malpractice: (1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience.

2024We determine the gravamen of a party’s action by “examining the entire claim” and do so by “look[ing] beyond the procedural labels in the complaint and determine the exact nature of the claim.” Id.

2022The courts must look beyond the procedural labels in the complaint and determine the exact nature of the claim.” Norris v Lincoln Park Police Officers, 292 Mich App 574, 582 ; 808 NW2d 578 (2011) (Citations omitted).

2021In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), our Supreme Court “set forth a two-part test to determine whether an alleged claim is a medical malpractice claim, regardless of the labels the plaintiff uses.” Lucas v Awaad, 299 Mich App 345, 360 ; 830 NW2d 141 (2013).

2016Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 688 ; 593 NW2d 215 (1999). “[I]t is well established that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole and looking beyond the procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Lucas v Awaad, 299 Mich App 345, 360 ; 830 NW2d 141 (2013) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).

2016A plaintiff “ ‘cannot avoid the application of the procedural requirements of a malpractice action by couching [her] cause of action in terms of ordinary negligence.’ ” Id. quoting Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26, 43 ; 594 NW2d 455 (1999).

2016A plaintiff “ ‘cannot avoid the application of the procedural requirements of a malpractice action by couching [her] cause of action in terms of ordinary negligence.’ ” Id. quoting Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26, 43 ; 594 NW2d 455 (1999).

2007It is well established that “[t]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole,” Simmons v Apex Drug Stores, Inc, 201 Mich App 250, 253 ; 506 NW2d 562 (1993), and looking “beyond the procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim,” MacDonald v Barbarotto, 161 Mich App 542, 547 ; 411 NW2d 747 (1987).

2007It is well established that “[t]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole,” Simmons v Apex Drug Stores, Inc, 201 Mich App 250, 253 ; 506 NW2d 562 (1993), and looking “beyond the procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim,” MacDonald v Barbarotto, 161 Mich App 542, 547 ; 411 NW2d 747 (1987).

2024“Instead, an action should be determined by reading the entire complaint, looking beyond procedural labels, and determining the exact nature of the claim.” Id.

2022“Instead, an action should be determined by reading the entire complaint, looking beyond procedural labels, and determining the exact nature of the claim.” Pugno, 326 Mich App at 13 .

2018“In determining whether a statute of limitation applies, this Court looks to the true nature of a complaint, reading the complaint as a whole and looking beyond the parties’ labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626, 631 ; 808 NW2d 804 (2011).

2018“In determining whether a statute of limitation applies, this Court looks to the true nature of a complaint, reading the complaint as a whole and looking beyond the parties’ labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626, 631 ; 808 NW2d 804 (2011).

2018Id. “[T]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007).

2018Id. “[T]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007).

2025The gravamen of an action is determined by considering the claim itself.” (Quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)). 3 “Although MCR 7.215(C)(1) provides that unpublished opinions are not binding under the rule of stare decisis, a court may nonetheless consider such opinions for their instructive or persuasive value.” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 308 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -7- front lawn and leaving garbage in the yard.

2025The gravamen of an action is determined by considering the claim itself.” (Quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)). 3 “Although MCR 7.215(C)(1) provides that unpublished opinions are not binding under the rule of stare decisis, a court may nonetheless consider such opinions for their instructive or persuasive value.” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 308 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -7- front lawn and leaving garbage in the yard.

2024“The type of interest harmed, rather than the label given the claim, determines what limitations period controls.” Seebacher v Fitzgerald, Hodgman, Cawthorne & King, PC, 181 Mich App 642, 646 ; 449 NW2d 673 (1989).

2024“The type of interest harmed, rather than the label given the claim, determines what limitations period controls.” Seebacher v Fitzgerald, Hodgman, Cawthorne & King, PC, 181 Mich App 642, 646 ; 449 NW2d 673 (1989).

2023Therefore, “[w]hen an injury develops from a condition of the land, rather than emanating from an activity or conduct that created the condition on the property, the action sounds in premises liability.” Woodman v Kera, LLC, 280 Mich App 125, 153 , 760 NW2d 641 (2008) (Opinion by TALBOT, J.). “[I]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 691-692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012) (quotation marks and ci

2023Therefore, “[w]hen an injury develops from a condition of the land, rather than emanating from an activity or conduct that created the condition on the property, the action sounds in premises liability.” Woodman v Kera, LLC, 280 Mich App 125, 153 , 760 NW2d 641 (2008) (Opinion by TALBOT, J.). “[I]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 691-692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012) (quotation marks and ci

2023“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, (2) the defendant -2- breached the legal duty, (3) the plaintiff suffered damages, and (4) the defendant’s breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.” Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 492 Mich 651, 660 ; 822 NW2d 190 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023However, “[i]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” In re Gerald L Pollack Trust, 309 Mich App 125, 158 ; 867 NW2d 884 (2015).

2023However, “[i]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” In re Gerald L Pollack Trust, 309 Mich App 125, 158 ; 867 NW2d 884 (2015).

2019“The elements of tortious interference with a contract are (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) an unjustified instigation of the breach by the defendant.” Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005).

2019“The elements of tortious interference with a contract are (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) an unjustified instigation of the breach by the defendant.” Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005).

2019Finally, “[a]ny doubts about the arbitrability of an issue should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Indus, Inc, 196 Mich App 71, 75 ; 492 NW2d 463 (1992).

2019Finally, “[a]ny doubts about the arbitrability of an issue should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Indus, Inc, 196 Mich App 71, 75 ; 492 NW2d 463 (1992).

2019See Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007), where this Court explained, “[i]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” -2- caused plaintiff’s injuries, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages.” Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 274 Mich App 710, 712 ; 737 NW2d 179 (2007) (citation omitted).

2019See Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007), where this Court explained, “[i]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” -2- caused plaintiff’s injuries, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages.” Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 274 Mich App 710, 712 ; 737 NW2d 179 (2007) (citation omitted).

2019This is to avoid “artful pleading.” [Altobelli, 499 Mich at 299-300 (citations omitted).] See also Lebenbom, ___ Mich App at __; slip op at 5, where this Court announced: “we must review the arbitration clause, and determine ‘whether the subject matter’ of the instant dispute is covered by the arbitration clause.” “If plaintiff’s claims can be characterized as ‘arguably’ falling within the confines of the arbitration clause, any doubts are resolved in favor of arbitration, and the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.” Lebenbom, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op

2019This is to avoid “artful pleading.” [Altobelli, 499 Mich at 299-300 (citations omitted).] See also Lebenbom, ___ Mich App at __; slip op at 5, where this Court announced: “we must review the arbitration clause, and determine ‘whether the subject matter’ of the instant dispute is covered by the arbitration clause.” “If plaintiff’s claims can be characterized as ‘arguably’ falling within the confines of the arbitration clause, any doubts are resolved in favor of arbitration, and the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.” Lebenbom, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op

2017And while the federal complaint labels its counts “as to all defendants,” this Court “is not bound by a party’s choice of labels.” Attorney General v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, 292 Mich App 1, 9 ; 807 NW2d 343 (2011). “[T]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007).

2017And while the federal complaint labels its counts “as to all defendants,” this Court “is not bound by a party’s choice of labels.” Attorney General v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, 292 Mich App 1, 9 ; 807 NW2d 343 (2011). “[T]he gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007).