Background
Kurt Griggs-Swanson sought treatment at Beaumont Hospital Farmington Hills on March 29, 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, requesting a COVID-19 test. The hospital declined to test him and sent him home. On March 31, 2020, plaintiff returned to the hospital in an ambulance seeking a COVID-19 test and admission, believing he was infected. Though he arrived by ambulance with no transportation home and wished to avoid exposing household members to potential infection, the hospital again refused both testing and admission. Plaintiff was removed from the hospital’s outdoor triage tent by security staff.
Plaintiff initially sued for assault and battery arising from his removal by security; that case was previously dismissed and affirmed on appeal in 2024. Plaintiff then filed this action alleging medical malpractice, gross negligence, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the hospital and Dr. Diane Kaiser, who assessed his condition. After the federal court dismissed the civil rights claim, defendants moved for summary disposition in the trial court, which granted it with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA) did not bar his claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition. Under MCL 691.1475, health care providers and facilities furnishing services in support of Michigan’s COVID-19 response are immune from liability for injury unless the provision of services constituted willful misconduct, gross negligence, intentional and willful criminal misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm. The immunity applies retroactively to services provided between March 29, 2020, and July 14, 2020. Though plaintiff was never tested for or diagnosed with COVID-19, the court found that defendants’ assessment of his COVID-19 symptoms to determine whether admission was warranted created the requisite connection to the pandemic necessary for immunity to apply.
The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to reframe his medical malpractice claim as one for gross negligence to escape immunity. Under MCL 691.1473(a), gross negligence requires “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results”—a substantially higher standard than ordinary negligence. The court found no such conduct here. Dr. Kaiser’s decision not to admit plaintiff, based on his stable condition and the hospital’s limited bed capacity during the pandemic surge, reflected reasonable medical judgment, not recklessness. The court noted that plaintiff received assessment for COVID-19 symptoms, was given prescriptions, and was instructed to return if his symptoms worsened. That he was admitted to another hospital four days later did not establish that his condition warranted admission when he was evaluated on March 31, 2020.
Key Takeaways
- PHCIA immunity extends beyond COVID-19-specific treatment to include regular healthcare services provided during the statutory period when hospital resources were diverted to pandemic response.
- Gross negligence requires proof of reckless conduct showing substantial lack of concern for injury—disagreement with a physician’s clinical judgment does not meet this threshold.
- A “some connection” test applies: immunity covers not only direct COVID-19 treatment but also collateral healthcare decisions made in response to pandemic constraints, provided there is a nexus to the pandemic.
- Plaintiffs cannot circumvent immunity by relabeling ordinary medical malpractice claims as gross negligence without evidence of reckless conduct distinct from the negligence standard.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes a broad interpretation of PHCIA immunity, significantly limiting litigation risk for hospitals and healthcare providers during pandemic response. The court’s requirement of a “some connection” to the pandemic rather than direct COVID-19 treatment shields triage and admission decisions made under crisis conditions and resource constraints. For plaintiffs, the decision confirms that mere disagreement with medical judgment during the pandemic, or even harm resulting from denied admission, does not overcome statutory immunity unless conduct rises to the level of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
The ruling reflects a policy judgment that healthcare providers making difficult resource-allocation decisions during public health emergencies deserve protection from malpractice liability, even when outcomes are adverse. It has implications beyond COVID-19: the framework for pandemic immunity may serve as a template for liability protections during future emergencies when hospital systems are overwhelmed and providers must make painful triage choices with incomplete information and constrained resources.