From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Center-Gratiot

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jan 24, 2017
889 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 2017)

Opinion

SC: 154159 COA: 326606

01-24-2017

Tammy MCNEILL–MARKS, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER–GRATIOT, Defendant–Appellant.


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the plaintiff's communication with her attorney constitutes a report to a public body within the meaning of MCL 15.361(d) and MCL 15.362 such that it is protected activity under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq . The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.


Summaries of

McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Center-Gratiot

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jan 24, 2017
889 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 2017)
Case details for

McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Center-Gratiot

Case Details

Full title:Tammy MCNEILL–MARKS, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Jan 24, 2017

Citations

889 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 2017)

Citing Cases

McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Center-Gratiot

Our Supreme Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs to address whether plaintiff's…

McNeill-Marks v. MidMichigan Med. Ctr.-Gratiot

With regard to plaintiff's public policy claim, the panel held that because this claim arose out of the same…