Medical malpractice; The Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act; MCL 691.1475; Executive Order No. 2020-30; Warran v McLaren Flint

The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant-medical center was immune from this suit under the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act and an applicable executive order. It agreed with plaintiff-estate that its claims did “not arise from services that defendant provided in support of the state’s response to the pandemic.” The 91-year-old decedent underwent a procedure related to gallbladder disease. He died after being attacked by his “mentally unstable roommate who had a known propensity for violent outbursts.” The estate brought medical malpractice and ordinary negligence claims related to the assault. The court concluded the “services that allegedly caused the injury in this case were not given ‘in support of this state’s response to the’ pandemic. This lawsuit stems entirely from the beating inflicted upon the decedent by his roommate.” Neither the decedent nor his roommate was being treated for COVID-19. “The alleged negligent act was placing him in a room with an unsafe roommate, and the alleged omission was failing to deploy adequate safeguards to protect the decedent from the roommate whom was known to be unsafe.” The court found it clear “that neither of those were done in support of the pandemic response. There certainly will be gray area with respect to whether medical services were offered in support of the state’s pandemic response, but this particular case is black and white. The alleged acts, omissions, and injuries were wholly unrelated to the pandemic, so deeming defendant immune would contravene the Legislature’s clearly-communicated intent to limit this immunization to services stemming from the pandemic. The fact that the decedent apparently contracted COVID-19 at some point following his admission does not change the fact that he was not being treated at the hospital for COVID-19 or that the incident giving rise to this litigation was completely separate.” The court noted it was not holding “that immunity only applies when a patient is being treated for COVID-19, but it is clear that there must be some connection.” It further noted that its ruling here was consistent with its recent holding in Warran. It reached a different result there “because, unlike this case, there was a clear connection between the pandemic and the services giving rise to the cause of action.” Reversed and remanded.