Grimmer v. Lee, 310 Mich. App. 95

Melody Grimmer died after a cardiac catheterization by Dr. Mattichak; autopsy attributed death to a fatal retroperitoneal hematoma.
Plaintiff Grimmer sued multiple defendants including BRMC, BRHV, Drs. Vasquez, Lee, and Mattichak, alleging negligence and vicarious liability.
Vasquez was alleged to have failed to intercede after recognizing the hematoma.
Grimmer did not file an affidavit of merit for the cardiologists; the cardiologists moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7)/(C)(8).
Vasquez and his professional corporation were dismissed without prejudice for lack of service prior to the summary-disposition hearing; BRMC/BRHV faced vicarious-liability theories against Drs. Vasquez’s conduct.
The circuit court granted summary disposition against the cardiologists and, sua sponte, dismissed the Vasquez-related vicarious-liability claims with prejudice, prompting Grimmer’s appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Vasquez-related vicarious-liability dismissal proper?	Grimmer claims due process was violated; no motion addressed Vasquez.	Defendants contend dismissal was proper under the summary-disposition framework.	No; dismissal without proper motion and notice violated due process.
Does a without-prejudice dismissal bar vicarious-liability claims?	Dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.	Dismissal with prejudice would bar subsequent actions against principals.	Without-prejudice dismissal does not preclude vicarious liability claims; reversal warranted.

Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers, 467 Mich. 1 (2002) (direct and vicarious liability theories in hospital settings)
Nippa v. Botsford Gen. Hosp., 257 Mich. App. 387 (2003) (vicarious liability permitting imputation of negligence to hospital)
Al-Shimmari v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 477 Mich. 280 (2007) (dismissal consequences on vicarious-liability claims; necessity of agent’s negligence)