Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MARY JO BEGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v MICHIGAN AFFILIATED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 3, 1997

No. 183687 LC No. 94-077629-NO

Before: McDonald, P.J., and Bandstra and C.L. Bosman,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right the order denying her motion for summary disposition and dismissing with prejudice her claim that defendant violated the Municipal Health Facilities Corporations Act, MCL 331.1101 et seq.; MSA 14.1148(101) et seq., when it eliminated various employment benefits. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's claim because it concluded that the statute was intended to protect only vested benefits, and that none of the benefits that had been eliminated were vested. Defendant cross appeals from the trial court's partial denial of its motion for summary disposition, in which the court found that plaintiff's claim was not barred by the ninety-day statute of limitations provision set forth at MCL 331.1307(4); MSA 14.1148(307)(4) and that plaintiff had stated a claim with regard to those terms and conditions of employment that had vested. We affirm the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and the dismissal of plaintiff's claim. We review the trial court's decisions on issues of statutory interpretation and summary disposition motions de novo. Saraski v Dexter Davison Kosher Meat & Poultry, 206 Mich App 347, 351; 520 NW2d 383 (1994); Borman v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 198 Mich App 675, 678; 499 NW2d 419 (1993), aff'd 446 Mich 482; 521 NW2d 266 (1994). Defendant Michigan Affiliated Healthcare System (MAHS) is the surviving corporation created by the merger of Ingham Medical Center Corporation, a nonprofit entity formerly o perated by Ingham County, and Lansing General Hospital. The Municipal Health Facilities Corporations Act prohibits a governmental entity from entering into a contract or agreement under which the contractor or transferee is to continue * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

operating a municipal health care facility unless the contractor or transferee agrees to "continue the terms and conditions of employment of employees of the affected health care facility." MCL 331.1307(2)(c); MSA 14.1148(307)(2)(c). Pursuant to this requirement, this same language was included in the merger agreement. Following the merger, MAHS eliminated certain employment benefits, including longevity benefits. Plaintiff, a registered nurse formerly employed by Ingham Medical Center Corporation and presently employed by MAHS, brought suit claiming that this action was in violation of

Download MARY JO BEGGS V MICHIGAN AFFILIATED HEALTHCARE.pdf

Michigan Law