Claims arising from testimony about plaintiff’s answers to medical screening questions during his booking in a criminal case; The physician-patient privilege (MCL 600.2157); People v. Bland; Bassil v. Ford Motor Co.; Privileged communications under the Mental Health Code (MCL 330.1001 et seq.); MCL 330.1750; “Patient”; McLean v. McElhaney; “Privileged communication”; MCL 330.1700(h); Solicitation of personal injury claims (MCL 750.410); The wrongful disclosure provision of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) (42 USC § 1320d-6); People v. Carrier; “Covered entities”; 45 CFR § 160.103; Holman v. Rasak; Reliance on MCL 767.5a(2); “Medical examination”; MI Admin R 791.731 & 732; Intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; Hayley v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Breach of implied contract; Invasion of privacy; Governmental immunity; Odom v. Wayne Cnty.; “Gross negligence”; MCL 691.1407(8)(a); Outrageousness; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg Bros. Special Account; Teadt v. Lutheran Church MO Synod; Absolute immunity for witness testimony; Maiden v. Rozwood; A governmental entity’s vicarious liability; Ross v. Consumers Power Co.; Whether summary disposition was premature; Discovery “fishing expeditions”; Augustine v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Promissory estoppel; Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co.; Sanctions for frivolous claims; MCR 2.625(A)(2); MCL 600.2591; “Shall”; People v. De La Mater; Ability to pay; Distinguishing People v. Herrera; Applicability of Sales v. Marshall (6th Cir.)

Holding that none of defendant-Allen’s testimony at plaintiff’s criminal trial consisted of privileged information, and that plaintiff did not show that Allen or defendant-Osier committed any tort, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. It also affirmed the trial court’s award of sanctions for defendants on the basis his claims were frivolous, noting that neither MCR 2.625(A)(2) nor MCL 600.2591 reference a party’s ability to pay. Defendant-Ogemaw County Correctional Facility (OCCF) is defendant-Ogemaw County’s jail. Osier is the jail administrator, and Allen is a corrections officer. After plaintiff was arrested in a criminal matter, Allen booked him into OCCF. “Pursuant to a health screening procedure, Allen asked plaintiff some basic health questions during the booking procedure. Allen then testified at plaintiff’s criminal trial. Plaintiff” asserted that his “testimony constituted, among other things, damaging and emotionally traumatic disclosure of privileged information.” The court first noted that while he characterized “the health-related questions Allen asked during the booking procedure as a ‘medical examination,’ it was not. Administrative Rule R 791.731 requires a screening by a ‘trained staff member.’ In contrast, Administrative Rule R 791.732 requires a subsequent health appraisal by a ‘trained health care person.’ In any event,” no evidence suggested “Allen did anything more invasive than make a superficial observation of plaintiff’s outward appearance and record plaintiff’s self-reported responses to a series of form questions.” As to his assertion of a physician-patient privilege, the court concluded that “no privilege under MCL 600.2157 can arise where plaintiff never sought any kind of medical treatment from, or medical communications with, a person authorized to practice medicine or surgery. The extremely limited circumstances under which plaintiff could assert an agency theory never arose.” In addition, he could not “possibly have been a ‘patient’ under the Mental Health Code because, pursuant to his own answers, he was neither suffering from any apparent mental health illness or condition, nor was he receiving treatment for that any such illness or condition.” As to HIPPA’s wrongful disclosure provision, “none of the defendants could be considered a health care provider.”