|
No. 128059
| Bruce B. Feyz, |
|
Jeffrey L. Herron |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Monroe - Costello, J.) |
|
|
| Mercy Memorial Hospital, Medical Staff of |
|
Susan Healy Zitterman |
| Mercy Memorial Hospital, Richard Hiltz, |
|
|
| James Miller, D.O., John Kalenkiewicz, M.D., |
|
|
| J. Marshall Newbern, D.O., and Anthony |
|
|
| Songco, M.D., |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| _________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Health & Hospital Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Osteopathic Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State Medical Society's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
This lawsuit, which was filed by plaintiff Dr. Bruce Feyz against the defendants, Mercy Memorial Hospital and several of its administrators, is the culmination of a long-standing dispute between the two groups. The dispute began when Dr. Feyz issued standing orders directing the nursing staff to gather specific information from incoming patients about their home prescription drug use. The hospital did not approve the standing orders, and instructed the nurses not to follow them. Dr. Feyz objected. Dr. Feyz also took issue with a hospital policy requiring physicians to sign transcriptions of their verbal orders that also contained information provided by the nursing staff. When the parties could not resolve their disagreements, the hospital staff initiated disciplinary proceedings. As a result of these proceedings, Dr. Feyz was referred for a psychological examination and placed on probation for a period of time in 1998 and again in 2000. In his lawsuit, Dr. Feyz alleged that the defendants’ actions violated several civil rights laws, and breached various contract and tort duties owed to him. The defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming immunity under the peer review statute, MCL 331.531. They also invoked the nonreviewability doctrine, arguing that hospital staffing decisions are not subject to judicial review. The trial court granted summary disposition in the defendants’ favor, dismissing Dr. Feyz’s claims. But the Court of Appeals, in a split published decision, reversed in part, reinstated many of Dr. Feyz’s claims, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the immunity granted by the peer review statute, MCL 331.531, does not extend to violations of civil rights acts. The court further held that the nonreviewability doctrine only shields private hospitals to the same extent that employment decisions of other private employers are shielded from review, meaning that private hospitals are subject to the same potential civil liability as any other private corporation that breaches a contract or commits a tort. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
