Whether the trial court properly denied the respondent-Stark's motion to terminate a PPO; Moot issues; Detroit v. Ambassador Bridge Co.; Tenneco, Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co.; Hayford v. Hayford
Since the PPO at issue expired by its own terms on June 23, 2009, even if respondent-Stark's arguments had merit, the issue was moot because it was impossible for the court to fashion any remedy. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal. Generally, an appellate court will not decide moot issues. An issue is moot when an event occurs rendering it impossible for the reviewing court to grant relief. Although respondent challenged the denial of her motion to terminate a PPO, the PPO expired by its own terms in June 2009. Thus, even if respondent's arguments had merit, it was impossible or unnecessary to fashion any remedy. A remand to the trial court for a new hearing would serve no purpose. Further, respondent did not provide information about any collateral consequences arising from the continued existence of the now-expired PPO, or any question of public significance likely to recur and yet evade judicial review to compel the court to review the merits of the appeal.
Full Text Opinion
State Bar of Michigan
306 Townsend St
Lansing, MI 48933-2012