Opinion
Docket No. 144783. COA No. 299639.
2013-07-3
Prior report: Mich.App., 2011 WL 5609825.
Order
On order of the Court, the motion to substitute parties is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the trial court erred by failing to equally divide between the parties the profits from use of the vascular laboratory from the date of dissolution to the date of the sale of the laboratory. MCL 450.4404(5) is not applicable to this case. Instead, the division of the profits of the company are governed by the operating agreement, which provides that the PLLC “shall be dissolved” upon the occurrence of a withdrawal event. ¶ 12.1. Thus, the PLLC was dissolved on January 13, 2004, when the hospital and the defendant entered their memorandum of understanding making the defendant's loss of staff privileges permanent. The value of the PLLC should be assessed as of that date. The defendant is not entitled to any profits derived from the plaintiff's use of the laboratory between January 13, 2004, and the date that the laboratory was sold. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.