Michigan Court Limits COVID-19 Immunity for Hospital Negligence Cases

In a significant legal development, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that hospitals cannot broadly claim immunity from negligence lawsuits for incidents that happened during the hectic early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court’s decision challenges the previous legal shield granted to healthcare facilities during that tumultuous period.

During the spring and early summer of 2020, the Michigan Legislature enacted a temporary law to protect healthcare providers from liability, except in cases involving “willful misconduct, gross negligence, intentional and willful criminal misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm.” This law was intended to address the extraordinary circumstances faced by healthcare systems at the time.

The recent case involved Beaumont Hospital in Troy, now part of Corewell Health, which contended that its immunity should extend beyond COVID-19 cases, citing the overall systemic disruptions caused by the pandemic. However, this argument was contested following the death of Shirley Jokinen, an 88-year-old patient who was treated for non-COVID-related conditions and died in May 2020 from sepsis and heart disease.

Initially, the Oakland County Circuit Court sided with Beaumont Hospital, supporting its broad interpretation of the immunity law. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned this decision, clarifying the limits of legal protections for healthcare providers. “They recognized that this patient was not there for COVID, so the COVID immunity really should not apply and they ruled in that manner,” said Kevin Oliver, the attorney representing Jokinen’s family.

Oliver further emphasized, “The immunity does not apply where the patient did not have COVID, was not treated for COVID,” in an interview with Michigan Public Radio. This decision may influence other ongoing legal cases that address the scope of liability for healthcare providers during the pandemic.

While Corewell Health has not commented on the appellate court’s decision, the ruling may be subject to further review if appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how similar lawsuits are handled in the future.