Background
Constance Bowen received treatment at Beaumont Hospital Farmington Hills, Hartford Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, and Mission Point of Detroit between April and July 2020. During that period, she developed or experienced worsening pressure injuries, including a stage-four sacral ulcer with exposed bone. She died on July 13, 2020, and her death certificate identified sepsis and the stage-four sacral decubitus ulcer as causes of death.
Bowen’s estate sued the facilities for medical malpractice. The defendants sought summary disposition based principally on immunity under Michigan’s Pandemic Healthcare Immunity Act, which covered certain healthcare services supporting the state’s COVID-19 response. The estate did not timely respond, allegedly because of an electronic-filing clerical error. The circuit court treated the motions as unopposed, granted summary disposition, and later denied reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the defendants failed to establish entitlement to Pandemic Healthcare Immunity Act immunity as a matter of law because they did not demonstrate the required connection between their pandemic-related services and the allegedly negligent treatment of Bowen’s pressure injuries. Merely providing care during the statutory immunity period, while also participating generally in the pandemic response, was insufficient.
Beaumont identified only a temporal overlap and could not rely on medical records introduced for the first time on appeal. Hartford’s reference to one telehealth wound assessment did not establish the necessary nexus because its documentation did not state that the assessment was conducted remotely because of the pandemic, and the complaint did not allege negligence involving that assessment. Mission Point offered no facility-specific argument or evidence and merely concurred in its codefendants’ unsuccessful motions.
The court nevertheless upheld the circuit court’s procedural decisions to enforce its scheduling orders, treat the motions as unopposed, and deny reconsideration because the estate did not substantiate the alleged clerical error. An unopposed summary-disposition motion, however, still must establish that judgment is legally appropriate, and these motions did not.
Key Takeaways
- Pandemic Healthcare Immunity Act protection requires a connection between the alleged malpractice and healthcare services supporting Michigan’s COVID-19 response; temporal overlap alone is not enough.
- A court may enforce a scheduling order and treat an unanswered dispositive motion as unopposed, but it must still determine whether the movant has established entitlement to judgment on the merits.
- Each defendant seeking statutory immunity must present a legally and factually sufficient basis for immunity; merely concurring in deficient arguments does not satisfy that burden.
Why It Matters
The published decision reinforces the limits of Michigan’s COVID-era healthcare immunity. Facilities do not receive blanket protection for every act of care performed during the statutory period merely because they also supported the state’s pandemic response.
It also clarifies an important procedural point for litigators: failure to oppose a summary-disposition motion can permit the court to decide it without the nonmovant’s input, but does not relieve the moving party of proving that dismissal is warranted as a matter of law.