Nelson v. Ho

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “only allegations of unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of the entrepreneurial, commercial, or business aspect of a physician’s practice may be brought under the [Michigan] CPA”
• holding that physician’s failure to inform patient of inherent risks involved prior to performing nasal surgery and representation that he would use nondissolvable sutures in her nose was not conduct in violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act
• explaining that the Michigan Consumer Protection Act “broadly defines Trade or commerce’ ”
• noting that the Michigan Supreme Court has not formally recognized this tort, but the Michigan Court of Appeals has and applies a three-year statute of limitations
• limiting scope of MCPA liability because “we do not think the MCPA was meant by the Legislature to be an alternative to its specific statutory scheme addressing medical malpractice claims”
• only allegations that concern entrepreneurial, commercial, or business aspect of physician’s practice may be brought under consumer protection statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).