Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); Odom v Wayne Cnty; Gross negligence; MCL 691.1407(8)(a); Proximate cause; Ray v Swager; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Graham v Ford; Presumption of good faith; The Social Welfare Act; MCL 400.11c(1); Adult Protective Services (APS)

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-APS employee summary disposition of plaintiffs’ negligence claims, but did not err by denying him summary disposition of their IIED claim. Plaintiffs sued defendant and others after their relative, a developmentally disabled adult, died while receiving inpatient medical care and supervision. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred by denying him summary disposition of plaintiffs’ negligence-based tort claims because it misapplied the proximate-causation standard under the GTLA. “Although the trial court articulated the operative proximate-causation standard in a . . . footnote, it applied the incomplete proximate-causation articulated in the body of its written opinion and order when it concluded that there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether” defendant proximately caused plaintiffs’ alleged injures. “[T]he trial court erroneously failed to consider whether [defendant] was the ‘the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause’ of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.” However, the court rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by denying him summary disposition of plaintiffs’ IIED claim because he acted in good faith. Even if he “was presumed to have acted in good faith, plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, would be sufficient to overcome the presumption.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.