Flint, Michigan – In a major decision by Michigan’s Court of Appeals, Flint’s Hurley Medical Center’s legal immunity claim under a COVID-era executive order was denied in relation to the death of a 91-year-old patient, Henry Henderson. The case illustrates how difficult legal obligations are during a pandemic.
Following an attack on his hospital room by a roommate known for extreme instability using an IV pole, Henry Henderson sadly passed away. Henderson was healing following minor gallbladder surgery in April 2020 at the time. The attacker’s condition led the hospital officials to assign him a “sitter” after he had earlier been flagged.
Trauma surgeons tried, but Henderson’s condition worsened until he passed away. With COVID-19 thought to have been acquired following his hospital admission, the official cause of death was “COVID-19 associated pneumonia and complications thereof complicated by hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”
Originally citing Executive Order No. 2020-30, which was meant to shield healthcare facilities from obligations linked to the provision of medical services during the COVID-19 reaction, the hospital had first sought immunity. Kimberly Skipper-Baines, representing Henderson’s estate, challenged this legal shield, which resulted in the Court of Appeals closely scrutinizing the validity of the immunity.
Read also: Flint expands mobile pantry services in September with MDHHS and Food Bank of Eastern Michigan
On August 22, the three judges—Allie Greenleaf Maldonado, Michael J. Kelly, and Michelle M. Rick—decided unequivocally that the presidential order did not apply in this specific case. They said that Henderson’s careless choice to be paired with a known unstable patient was not taken in line with the pandemic response. The court noted that neither any direct COVID-19 treatment nor pandemic-related healthcare modification affected the choices leading to Henderson’s death.
The judges noted, “There certainly will be gray area with respect to whether medical services were offered in support of the state’s pandemic response, but this particular case is black and white.”
Read also: Federal funds to connect over 200,000 Michigan homes and businesses to high-speed internet
The result of this case has clarified possible uses of pandemic-related legal safeguards. Originally submitting the appeal, Carlene Reynolds Weber, a lawyer, underlined the importance of the decision in preventing the misuse of COVID-19 rights by institutions. She underlined how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act gave hospitals financial incentives, which would have resulted in exploitative behaviors under the cover of pandemic reaction.
Read also: New policy allows pregnant women and young immigrants in Michigan to receive Medicaid
Hurley Medical Center has not yet responded formally about the court’s ruling. This case is still a pivotal illustration of the difficulties and legal interpretations the healthcare system must deal with in the extraordinary COVID-19 epidemic. It raises significant issues regarding the extent of responsibility and defense available to medical establishments during crises.