Medical malpractice; COVID-19 care; Immunity under MCL 691.1475; “Health care facility,” “hospital,” “health care services,” “in support of,” “this state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” & “response”; Gross negligence; Discovery; Davis v Detroit; Void for vagueness challenge

The court concluded that the “immunity provision in MCL 691.1475 applies to injuries and deaths that arose out of a healthcare facility’s treatment, both regular care and COVID-19 care, in support of the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the statutorily designated time period,” 3/29/20 until and including 7/14/20. Also, plaintiff “failed to plead facts in support of a gross-negligence theory such that he was not entitled to further discovery.” Finally, MCL 691.1475 is not void for vagueness on the facts presented here. This case involved “a claim of medical malpractice for medical care plaintiff received from defendant’s hospital during the early days of” COVID-19. Plaintiff argued that his negligence claims were not barred by MCL 691.1475. There was “no dispute that the act or omission that is the basis of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action occurred during the statutory time frame.” He contended “that the wound care he received was provided by defendant in the ordinary course of business as a private hospital and not in support of a state vaccine mandate or other state mandate or policy.” The court disagreed with his interpretation of the statutory language. The court understood “the immunity provision in MCL 691.1475 to cover both regular medical care and medical treatment specific to COVID-19.” Its conclusion was supported by the executive orders from which the immunity provision in MCL 691.1475 was conceived (EO 2020-30). The court held that “hospitals providing medical care to those infected with COVID-19 during the statutory period assisted, helped, or promoted the state’s reactions and actions taken as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant supported the state’s response by providing care to patients, such as plaintiff, infected with COVID-19.” Plaintiff did “not dispute that he had COVID-19, but contends that the fact that he contracted COVID-19 does not automatically render all subsequent care he received covered by MCL 691.1475. This argument does not comport with the statutory language.” Plaintiff claimed “that he developed multiple pressure ulcers in defendant’s care. Those injuries were a consequence of the care defendant provided in response to COVID-19. Stated otherwise, those injuries were sustained by reason of the healthcare services provided by defendant in support of the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff presented at the hospital with signs of COVID-19, was admitted to the COVID-19 floor for COVID-19 treatment, and allegedly developed pressure ulcers as a result of that care. Such a sequence of events is covered by the plain language of the statute.” The next inquiry was “whether an exception to the statutory immunity applied.” Plaintiff argued “that he alleged gross negligence in his complaint such that the exception for gross negligence in MCL 691.1475 was applicable; however, further discovery was necessary to investigate those allegations.” The court disagreed that he was entitled to additional discovery. Notably, he “did not seek leave to amend his complaint to allege gross negligence in the lower court proceedings.” Likewise, he made no request for remand to amend his complaint. Affirmed.