COA 376010 MY MICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER SAGINAW V PRECISION RADIOGRAPHY PLLC Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 3/18/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
MY MICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER SAGINAW,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2026
11:17 AM
v No. 376010
Saginaw Circuit Court
PRECISION RADIOGRAPHY, PLLC, and NEAL
BHATT,
LC No. 25-000112-CB
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and YOUNG, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Precision Radiography, PLLC, and Dr. Neal Bhatt, appeal by leave granted1 a
decision granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiff, MyMichigan Medical Center Saginaw
(MyMichigan), and ordering Dr. Bhatt to not provide radiation-oncology services to a competing
hospital. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
As the result of a professional-services agreement between Precision and MyMichigan’s
predecessor, Ascension St. Mary’s Hospital (ASMH), Dr. Bhatt signed a noncompetition
agreement under which he agreed to not provide radiation-oncology services to another hospital
within 15 miles of an ASMH hospital for one year after termination of the professional-services
agreement. After ASMH was acquired by MyMichigan, Precision and MyMichigan entered into
contractual negotiations that resulted in Precision giving notice of its intent to terminate the
professional-services agreement. Subsequently, Dr. Bhatt began to work at Covenant Health, a
competing hospital, located within 15 miles of an ASMH hospital. MyMichigan sued for breach
of contract and asked the trial court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent Dr. Bhatt from
providing radiation-oncology services to the competing hospital. Following hearings on the
1 My Mich Med Ctr Saginaw v Precision Radiography PLLC, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered June 18, 2025 (Docket No. 376010).

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
motion, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented Dr. Bhatt from doing so. This
Court stayed the injunction pending appeal. My Mich Med Ctr Saginaw v Precision Radiography
PLLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 18, 2025 (Docket No. 376010).
II. ANALYSIS
This Court reviews de novo whether an issue is moot. In re Tchakarova, 328 Mich App
172, 178; 936 NW2d 863 (2019). Courts must address questions of mootness as they arise. Equity
Funding, Inc v Village of Milford, 342 Mich App 342, 349; 994 NW2d 859 (2022). An issue is
moot if it presents nothing more than an abstract legal question that does not rest on existing facts
or an actual controversy. Thomas M Cooley Law Sch v Doe 1, 300 Mich App 245, 254; 833 NW2d
331 (2013). However, even if moot as a practical matter, this Court may consider an issue that is
of public significance and is likely to recur but evade judicial review. Gleason v Kincaid, 323
Mich App 308, 315; 917 NW2d 685 (2018).
In this case, the professional-services agreement prevented Dr. Bhatt from providing
services to a competing hospital for one year after its termination, which occurred on January 2,
2025. Although MyMichigan asked the trial court to extend the restriction by the amount of time
Dr. Bhatt had worked at the competing hospital, the court’s order did not do so. Thus, even if we
were to affirm the trial court’s order requiring Dr. Bhatt to comply with the noncompetition
agreement, our decision would answer only an abstract legal question because the order no longer
had a practical effect as of January 2, 2026. Additionally, the enforcement of a noncompetition
agreement between one physician and one hospital is not a matter of public significance that would
warrant considering the issue on the merits. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Dismissed.
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
/s/ Adrienne N. Young

-- 2 of 2 --