Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PATRICIA LANMAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of EUGENE H. LANMAN, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v KALAMAZOO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 12, 2006

No. 263665 Court of Claims LC No. 03-000130-MH

Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Neff and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant Kalamazoo Psychiatric Hospital appeals as of right an order denying its motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity. We reverse and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. Decedent Eugene H. Lanman was initially taken by police to a different hospital, which found decedent in need of inpatient psychiatric care. The police took decedent to defendant hospital, where he was found in need of care but capable of giving informed consent. Decedent signed a voluntary admission form, and defendant hospital admitted him for long-term psychiatric care, gave him medicine for back pain and placed him in a "quiet room." Overnight, decedent became increasingly agitated, eventually culminating in a struggle with defendant's staff and injection of a calming drug. Decedent stopped breathing, allegedly as a result of compression of his breathing capacity by defendant's staff during the struggle. Defendant's staff then performed CPR. Decedent was transported to a general hospital emergency room, where he remained until his death a little more than two weeks later. Plaintiff filed suit. Relevant to this appeal, plaintiff alleged a breach of contract claim premised on the voluntary admission form. Plaintiff also alleged an independent claim under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 USC 1395dd. The trial court found both claims to be pleaded in avoidance of governmental immunity and factually supportable at trial. A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entire record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation "to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent," with the presumption that unambiguous language should be enforced as written. Gladych v New Family -1-


Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 597; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). Likewise, proper interpretation of a contract and the applicability of governmental immunity are questions of law subject to review de novo. Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 463; 663 NW2d 447 (2003); Pierce v Lansing, 265 Mich App 174, 176; 694 NW2d 65 (2005). Governmental immunity is controlled by the Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Under MCL 691.1407(1): Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed. "If a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes a non-tort cause of action,

Download PATRICIA LANMAN V KALAMAZOO PSYCHIATRIC HOSP.pdf

Michigan Law