Medical malpractice; Direct liability of healthcare facility; Staffing, training, & supervision; Discovery; Relevance & proportionality; MCR 2.302(B)(1); Financial documents; Government citations; Physician-patient privilege; MCL 600.2157; Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA); MCL 691.1475; Retroactive immunity period; MCL 691.1477; COVID-19 connection; Franklin v Flint; Skipper-Baines v Board of Hosp Managers for the City of Flint; Jokinen v Beaumont Hosp Troy; Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

The court held that the challenged financial discovery and most citation discovery were improper, but citations about the decedent (Frances) had to be produced, and that PHCIA immunity applied only to the periods when her care was connected to COVID-19 treatment. This medical-malpractice action arose from alleged negligent wound care, staffing, hygiene, hydration, and nutrition during Frances’s admissions to defendant’s rehabilitation facility in 2020. The trial court compelled production of financial documents and government citations, then granted defendant partial summary disposition under the PHCIA for claims arising between 3/29/20 and 7/14/20. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of tax returns, balance sheets, income statements, staffing budgets, CMS cost reports, and payroll journals because those documents were “not relevant to the standard of care, breach, or if Frances’ injuries were caused by the breach.” It reasoned that the relevant issue was not “why” defendant allegedly failed to provide adequate staff, but “simply whether it did.” The court next held that citations about Frances were discoverable, but citations involving nonparty patients were not because the physician-patient privilege “prohibits disclosure even when the patient’s identity is redacted.” As to PHCIA immunity, the court held that immunity required “‘some connection . . . between the alleged malpractice and the pandemic.’” There was no such connection from 3/29/20 through 4/14/20, or during the May and June admissions after COVID-related care had ceased. But immunity applied from 4/15/20 through 4/17/20 and from 4/27/20 through 5/9/20 because Frances was receiving COVID-related care and the allegedly negligent services were given “in support of this state’s response to the” pandemic. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in Docket No. 371166. Reversed and remanded in Docket No. 374483.