
    STEIN v SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN FAMILY PLANNING PROJECT, INC
    Docket No. 89020.
    Submitted January 8, 1987, at Detroit.
    Decided February 6, 1987.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    Catherine Stein and her husband, Michael Stein, brought a medical malpractice action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Southeastern Michigan Family Planning Project, Inc., P. Eastin, R.N., and Wayne County General Hospital. The trial court, Charles Kaufman, J., denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to allege a breach of contract claim against the defendant hospital and entered an order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant hospital, from which plaintiffs appealed.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    1. In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 (1986), and Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223 (1986), the Court of Appeals considered and rejected plaintiffs’ claim that extending governmental immunity to public hospitals, such as the defendant hospital in this case, deprives patients of equal protection and due process.
    2. Pursuant to the statute of frauds, the absence of a writing signed by an authorized representative of the defendant hospital is fatal to plaintiffs’ contract claim.
    Affirmed.
    
      Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, P.C. (by Jeffrey N. Shillman and Barbara A. Patek), for plaintiffs.
    
      John D. O’Hair, Corporation Counsel, Glen H. Downs and Dean Koularas, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Wayne County General Hospital.
    Before: Cynar, P.J., and J. H. Gillis and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs, Catherine Stein, also known as Catherine Sudat, and her husband, Miehael Stein, appeal from a circuit court order granting summary disposition to defendant Wayne County General Hospital.

On the authority of Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223; 393 NW2d 847 (1986), we affirm the entry of summary disposition for defendant on plaintiffs’ malpractice claim. The fact that defendant did not raise the "defense” of governmental immunity until after Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), was decided does not make the rules articulated in Ross inapplicable to this case. Plaintiffs’ previously filed complaint alleged sufficient facts to raise a governmental immunity issue. Hyde, supra, p 236, n 7.

We have considered plaintiffs’ arguments that granting immunity to public hospitals deprives patients of equal protection and due process. In Ross, supra, and Hyde, supra, the Supreme Court considered, and rejected, the public policy and fairness claims raised by plaintiffs concerning the substantive issue of immunity and the procedural issue of retroactivity. See, e.g., Ross, supra, pp 618-619, and Hyde, supra, pp 238-240, 244. In light of Ross and Hyde, plaintiffs’ arguments should be addressed to the Supreme Court which, we are persuaded, would not find unconstitutional the disparate treatment of public and private hospitals. See Hyde, supra, p 244, n 15.

Plaintiffs challenge the denial of their motion to amend their complaint to allege defendant’s breach of contract. The absence of a writing signed by an authorized representative of defendant and containing the essential terms of the alleged contract is fatal to plaintiffs’ contract claim. MCL 566.132(g); MSA 26.922(g); Gilmore v O’Sullivan, 106 Mich App 35; 307 NW2d 695 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 851 (1982).

Affirmed.  