Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 30, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
148898-9 Stephen J. Markman
148901-2 Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
JEANNE HARRISON, Richard H. Bernstein,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices
v SC: 148898-9
COA: 304512, 304539
Grand Traverse CC:
MUNSON HEALTHCARE, INC., 2009-027611-NH
Defendant-Appellant,
and
SURGICAL ASSOCIATES OF TRAVERSE
CITY, P.L.L.C., WILLIAM P. POTTHOFF,
M.D., and CINDY GILLIAND, R.N.,
Defendants,
and
THOMAS R. HALL,
Appellee.
_________________________________________/
JEANNE HARRISON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 148901-2
COA: 304512, 304539
Grand Traverse CC:
MUNSON HEALTHCARE, INC., 2009-027611-NH
Defendant-Appellee,
and
SURGICAL ASSOCIATES OF TRAVERSE
CITY, P.L.L.C., WILLIAM P. POTTHOFF,
M.D., and CINDY GILLIAND, R.N.,
Defendants,
and
THOMAS R. HALL,
Appellant.
_________________________________________/
2
By order of June 20, 2014, the applications for leave to appeal the January 30,
2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals were held in abeyance pending the decision in
Krusac v Covenant Medical Center, Inc (Docket No. 149270). On order of the Court, the
case having been decided on April 21, 2015, 497 Mich. 251 (2015), the applications are
again considered. In Krusac, we overruled that part of the Court of Appeals opinion in
this case (Harrison v Munson Healthcare, Inc), in which the court held that factual
information recorded on the first page of the incident report was not immune from
disclosure as material protected pursuant to MCL 333.21515. In light of our decision in
Krusac, we VACATE the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion. In addition, we
VACATE the April 8, 2011 Decision and Order Regarding Motion for Sanctions of the
Grand Traverse Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the circuit court for further
proceedings. The circuit court erroneously relied on Centennial Healthcare Mgt Corp v
Dep’t of Consumer & Industry Services, 254 Mich. App. 275 (2002), to conclude that the
facts recorded in the incident report should not have been kept from the jury. Because it
is unclear from the circuit court’s Decision and Order Regarding Motion for Sanctions
whether this conclusion was central to its decision to sanction defendant Hospital and its
counsel, we remand for reconsideration of the sanctions award. If it chooses to again
impose sanctions, the court shall explain why the specific facts on which it relies to
conclude that defendant Hospital and its counsel were precluded from arguing that the
Bovie was inadvertently or accidentally unholstered justify its sanctions award.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 30, 2015
t0929
Clerk