Medical malpractice; Immunity under the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA); “Some connection” requirement; Franklin v McLaren Flint; Skipper-Baines v Board of Hosp Managers for City of Flint; Jokinen v Beaumont Hosp Troy; Constitutionality of the retroactive application of the PHCIA; Personal representative (PR)

In these consolidated appeals in medical malpractice cases, the court held that defendant-hospital was immune under the PHCIA in one of the cases but that the defendants in the other case were not because they failed to produce evidence meeting the PHCIA’s “some connection” requirement. In Docket No. 368268, plaintiff-PR sued defendant-William Beaumont Hospital, which appealed the trial court’s denial of its summary disposition motion. In Docket No. 368395, another PR sued multiple defendants, who also appealed the denial of their summary disposition motions. The court noted that while a COVID-19 “diagnosis or treatment is not necessary to invoke immunity under the PHCIA, there must still be ‘some connection’ between the medical care provided and the provider’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic to warrant immunity.” It held that “there was such a connection in Docket No. 368268,” with the result that the trial court erred in denying Beaumont’s summary disposition motion. It found that the circumstances in this “case, for all relevant purposes,” were indistinguishable from those in Franklin. The decedent “was diagnosed and treated for COVID-19. Although the alleged malpractice . . . related to the failure to identify and take steps to mitigate any risk of [her] falling out of her bed, this type of medical care would be ‘regular medical care’ in support of the state’s response to the pandemic, and under Franklin, is still covered under the PHCIA.” Further, plaintiff did not “show how the retroactive application of the PHCIA was unconstitutional.” But in the other case, defendants did not cite any evidence to show that their treatment of the decedent “was connected to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, [they] merely averred that the PHCIA afforded blanket protection to all healthcare providers during the pertinent period.” That was incorrect – “there must be some connection between the injuries and the provider’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Thus, in Docket No. 368268 the court reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition for Beaumont, while in Docket No. 368395, it affirmed.