Medical malpractice; Statutory immunity under the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA); Franklin v McLaren Flint; Skipper-Baines v Board of Hosp Managers for City of Flint; Jokinen v Beaumont Hosp Troy; Retroactivity of the PHCIA; Constitutional rights

In this medical malpractice case, the court saw “no error in the trial court’s determination that defendants were entitled to summary disposition” based on PHCIA immunity. Plaintiff claimed “that the trial court erred by concluding that her suit was barred by the PHCIA’s grant of immunity.” But the court agreed “with the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s alleged negligence and malpractice in providing services to the decedent falls within the scope of the PHCIA’s immunity, given the connection between that alleged negligence and malpractice and the COVID-19 pandemic.” The court found that although “none of the published authority regarding the PHCIA is quite on all fours with this case,” Franklin was the most analogous. Plaintiff instead pointed to Skipper-Baines and Jokinen, “but those cases do not aid her position.” The trial court’s decision was supported by the court’s “binding precedent interpreting the PHCIA’s grant of immunity, and” the court concluded that plaintiff did not demonstrate “that the trial court erred by awarding defendants summary disposition on this basis.” Plaintiff next argued “that the retroactive application of the PHCIA’s immunity is unconstitutional because it deprives her of a vested right to sue defendants without them having immunity, and the trial court erred by concluding otherwise.” The court disagreed. As “the trial court correctly recognized, it is clear that the Legislature intended the PHCIA to apply retroactively. And we also agree with the trial court that plaintiff has not demonstrated that such retroactive application is unconstitutional.” Thus, plaintiff “failed to show that the PHCIA’s retroactive application violated her constitutional rights.” Affirmed.