Where a defendant hospital was sued over its response to a plaintiff’s medical-record request, a grant of summary disposition in favor of the hospital should be affirmed despite the plaintiff’s contention that the issue of damages was outstanding, the defendants failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary disposition with documentary evidence and the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact.
“Plaintiff Quentin White appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation (HFMH) and MRO Corporation (MRO) under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We affirm.
“Defendants presented documentary evidence demonstrating that the HFMH medical records were transmitted to White’s counsel by e-mail on June 14, 2021. On June 22, 2021, White’s counsel prepared his settlement damage letter to Farm Bureau Insurance Company. In this settlement demand, White’s counsel summarized the HFMH medical records from January 5, 2021 as well as White’s medical treatment that continued through May 25, 2021. White offered photographs that purportedly demonstrated disfigurement consisting of marks on his forehead and thumb. Although White raised a claim of noneconomic loss, he principally sought loss of consortium damages consisting of $140,000. Approximately two weeks after the submission of the settlement demand, White agreed to accept $15,000 to resolve his automobile negligence claim. Defendants presented documentary evidence that HFMH’s counsel submitted the medical records to White, who was able to use those documents to negotiate a settlement of his claim. Accordingly, defendants made and supported their request for summary disposition with documentary evidence.
“Finally, we reject White’s contention that he created a genuine issue of material fact. In opposition to defendants’ request for summary disposition, White submitted an affidavit from counsel, Sandy Sitto. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to White, the Sitto affidavit failed to create a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating that White’s claim would have settled for $30,000 more if the HFMH medical records had been received within 30 days. Although Sitto may have experience as a processor of bodily injury claims, this affidavit offered a mere conclusion and failed to delineate an underlying foundation to support its position. Nor did White offer any other evidence to that effect, such as an affidavit from a claims adjuster describing the requirements for receipt of a claim, the importance of the initial hospitalization records, and the impact of a six-month delay in presenting a settlement demand even prior to the filing of a lawsuit. In light of this deficiency, summary disposition in favor of defendants was proper.”
White v. Henry Ford Macomb Hosp. Corp.; MiLW 08-108309, 9 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Letica, J., Boonstra, J., Mariani, J.; on appeal from Macomb Circuit Court; Marcia Pupkiewicz for appellant; Daniel J. Rasschaert for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
For top headlines, breaking news and more, visit milawyersweekly.com or sign up for our newsletter .
Most Popular
Comments / 0