 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ligouri v. Wyandotte Hospital and Medical Center9/27/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
Defendant appeals by leave granted the April 26, 2000 order by the trial court requiring defendant to turn over to plaintiff its incident report and related documents pertaining to a fall suffered by the plaintiff in her room at defendant's hospital. We reverse and remand.
I. Facts
Plaintiff was admitted to defendant hospital on August 21, 1998 with pneumonia in the lower left lung, possible pulmonary embolism, and secondary to deep venous thrombosis. Plaintiff's condition improved and she was given permission to get out of bed to use the bathroom. On August 31, 1998, plaintiff fell while on her way to the bathroom and received a head injury. Plaintiff indicated that she had tripped on a cord. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff's family was informed of her fall and they sought to ascertain how it had occurred.
On August 9, 1999, plaintiff filed this action alleging negligence and breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged that she fell when she tripped on a fan cord and that defendant had breached its duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition and had breached its promise to provide a reasonably safe premises and to protect her from foreseeable injury. Defendant filed for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff's claim was a medical malpractice claim, but had not complied with the pre-suit notice required by MCL 600.2912b. The trial court, however, concluded that the statute was not applicable because the claim was not a medical malpractice claim.
On February 25, 2000, the trial court ordered defendant to turn over "any and all investigation reports and/or incident reports involving the trip and fall" of plaintiff for an in camera inspection. Defendant argued that the documents were privileged by statute, but plaintiff argued that the statute only applied to medical malpractice claims. The court concluded that the statutory privilege did not apply because it was negligence case and not a malpractice case. As a result, the court ordered that the documents be turned over and defendant filed an application for leave to appeal, which was granted.
II. Analysis
Review of a trial court's grant of a motion to compel discovery is for an abuse of discretion. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins Co v Bronson Plating Co, 197 Mich App 482, 494; 496 NW2d 373 (1992). However, whether production of certain documents is barred by statute is a matter of law and is reviewed de novo. Dye v St John Hospital & Medical Center, 230 Mich App 661, 665; 584 NW2d 747 (1998).
A. Applicability of the Statute to Negligence Claims
Defendant argues that the materials sought by plaintiff are privileged from disclosure under two sections of the Public Health Code. Plaintiff contends, however, that MCL 333.20175(8) and MCL 333.21515 are not applicable to this situation because this case concerns a negligence claim and not a medical malpractice claim. This issue has not been raised before and is an issue of statutory construction. The rules of statutory construction are well established. The primary goal of the courts in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Brown v Genesee Co Board of Comm'rs, 464 Mich 430, 437; 628 NW2d 471 (2001). This goal is best accomplished by carefully examining the language of the statute itself. The words of the statute provide the most reliable evidence of its intent. Id. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. Tryc v Michigan Vetrans' Facility, 451 Mich 129, 135; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). We must give the words of a statute their pl
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|