664 N.W.2d 221
No. 123590 (41).Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 3, 2003.
COA: 235114, Oakland CC: 00-024036-NH
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2003 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to defendant’s Issue I (whether “Michigan physicians owe a duty on which the recipient of an independent medical examination can file a civil suit absent a physician-patient relationship”). The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed (1) whether a physician may be held liable for ordinary negligence in the performance of an IME; (2) if so, whether expert testimony may be used to establish the physician’s duty in performing the IME; and (3) whether an
Page 946
IME physician might have some limited professional duty, short of the duty that would apply if a physician-patient relationship existed, that could support a claim for medical malpractice. The motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED because it is unnecessary. MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a).