 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.6/9/1999
psychiatric ward involves questions of professional medical management and, therefore, cannot be judged by the common knowledge and experience of a jury. Thus, the plaintiff's claim was one of medical malpractice and subject to MCL 600.2912b; MSA 27A.2912(2) and MCL 600.2912d; MSA 27A.2912(4). Because the plaintiff failed to comply with these provisions, the trial court erred in not granting the hospital's motions for summary disposition. Because the plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to challenge whether information sought was actually collected for the purpose of retrospective review by a peer committee, remand to the trial court is required to allow the plaintiff to test the veracity of the hospital's procedures.
Justice Kelly, joined by Justice Cavanagh, concurring in part and dissenting in part, stated that unknown patient names are not protected by the physician-patient privilege.
In holding that the names of unknown patients are protected by the physician-patient privilege, the majority has disregarded the plain language of the statute, unduly broadening the privilege. Michigan provides for expansive discovery, permitting parties to obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending action. Among the exceptions recognized by the Legislature is the physician patient privilege, which provides that information falls within its purview only if it was necessary to enable a physician to prescribe for a patient.
Dorris affirmed.
Gregory reversed in part and remanded.
Opinion
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except Corrigan, J., in Dorris).
We granted leave in these cases to determine if the physician patient privilege set forth in MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157 prevents the defendant hospitals from disclosing the identity of unknown third-party patients. We hold that the names of unknown patients are protected by the physician-patient privilege, and that defendant hospitals have a duty to refrain from disclosure. We also review the Gregory trial court's order that the defendant hospital provide Gregory with any investigative reports relative to the incident report; any statements made by any person with respect to the incident; and any notes, memoranda, records, and reports related to the incident. Additionally, we review the Gregory trial court's denial of the defendant hospital's motions for summary disposition for plaintiff's failure to file a notice of intent and for plaintiff's failure to file an affidavit of merit. We decline to review the Gregory trial court's partial denial of defendant's motion for partial summary disposition regarding plaintiff's express contract claim for violation of the statute of frauds and the Michigan Court Rules. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital. We partially reverse the trial court in Gregory v Heritage Hospital and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
A. Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital
This is an interlocutory appeal in a medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs Deborah Dorris and Raymond Dorris appeal the Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court's order compelling defendant Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corporation to reveal the name of the patient who shared a hospital room with Dorris.
Plaintiff Dorris visited the Riverside Osteopathic Hospital emergency room on the evening of June 18, 1993, complaining of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The emergency room physician, Dr. Lusk, prescribed the drug Compazine, which was administered intravenously. After the Compaz
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|