Negligence; Causation; Speculation; Skinner v Square D Co; Mere possibility; Powell-Murphy v Revitalizing Auto Cmtys Envtl Response Trust; Intentional interference with a business relationship; Johnson v Michigan Minority Purchasing Council; Whether administrative determinations were inadmissible hearsay; Distinguishing Swartz v Dow Chem Co; Registered Nurse (RN); Nurse Practitioner (NP); Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); Administrative law judge (ALJ); Department of Health & Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)

Holding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on causation, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant on her negligence and intentional interference with a business relationship claims. Plaintiff is an RN and NP. After she began working for defendant as an NP, it submitted her “application for Medicare and Medicaid billing privileges on her behalf” and, pursuant to its policy, “used its administrative address as the mailing address for Medicare correspondence addressed to” her. The case arose from the revocation of her Medicare billing privileges and 10-year bar on her reenrollment. She asserted negligence and intentional interference with a business relationship claims for defendant’s failure to promptly forward letters related to a medical records request from a CMS contractor. The court concluded that while she offered “evidence that she would have taken prompt action if defendant had timely forwarded the records request to her, there is no evidence to show anything beyond, at very most, a ‘mere possibility’ that her proposed actions would have resulted in a different outcome.” It found that the record lacked “direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that, had plaintiff taken any of the actions she has identified, she ‘more likely than not’ would have retained her billing privileges or not been barred from reenrollment for 10 years.” The court noted that “CMS, the ALJ, and the DAB all interpreted the pertinent federal regulations as imposing an independent recordkeeping duty on plaintiff. [She] consistently admitted during the administrative proceedings, and has never disputed, that she did not keep her own records[.]” CMS, the ALJ, and the DAB all “concluded that her admitted failure to keep her own records regarding the patients at issue violated those legal obligations and warranted revocation of her privileges and” the 10-year bar. The court also rejected her argument that the administrative determinations were inadmissible hearsay and the trial court erred in relying on them. It found her reliance on Swartz misplaced. Further, the factual findings in those determinations reflected her admissions “that she did not independently keep her own records[,]” which were nonhearsay under MRE 801(d)(2). Affirmed.