Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging that they failed to provide appropriate emergency medical services to plaintiff’s decedent, Dale Wehner. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10), arguing,
among other things, that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statutory immunity provided under the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901. Specifically, defendants argued that under the EMSA, defendants were immune from liability unless their actions amounted to gross negligence or willful misconduct. In this regard, defendants argued that, as a matter of law, their actions did not rise to the level of gross negligence or willful misconduct. Moreover, defendants argued that they could not be held liable under a theory of medical malpractice because there was no question of fact that Dale refused all medical treatment and transport to the hospital.
In response, plaintiff argued that the liability limitation included in the EMSA applied only when emergency medical personnel are engaged “in the treatment of a patient.” Plaintiff then reasoned that because the evidence showed that defendants never provided any treatment to Dale, the EMSA did not apply. Alternatively, plaintiff argued that if the EMSA applied, a question of fact existed regarding whether defendants’ actions amounted to gross negligence. Plaintiff argued that the conduct of all four individual defendants during both the October 3rd and 5th calls were a proximate case of Dale’s injuries and death.
The trial court found that the EMSA applied to this case and that there existed no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, and plaintiff appealed.
In its October 23, 2025 Opinion, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals stated: “The plain language of the statute specifically contemplates immunity for ordinary negligent actions and omissions and permits liability for grossly negligent actions and omissions. Concluding that the EMSA does not apply to circumstances where a plaintiff’s theory of liability is based on the failure to act would render half of the phrase “act or omission” nugatory” … On this record, it is clear that defendants’ interactions with Dale constituted treatment, though admittedly not in the manner plaintiff alleges was necessary. On both the October 3rd and 5th runs, the individual defendants assessed Dale’s medical situation, took certain vital signs (e.g., blood pressure), and advised him on what to do to improve his medical situation (e.g., pain medication and hydration). Plaintiff maintains that more should have been done, and plaintiff might well be correct. But, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-movant, the record shows that defendants provided Dale with some medical services and offered some medical advice, i.e., they provided treatment to him. Thus, defendants’ alleged material omissions—failing to administer oxygen and transport to a hospital—occurred in the course of treatment.”
With regard to gross negligence, the Michigan appellate court stated: “In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, considering defendants’ admissions that Dale’s condition was dire, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendants’ conduct in twice failing to transport Dale to the hospital for treatment, in representing to Dale that going to the hospital was unnecessary, and in representing that the hospitals were at capacity, was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted. Accordingly, plaintiff met his burden to come forward with evidence to support his claim that defendants’ conduct was grossly negligent. Therefore, the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition in defendants’ favor.”
Source Wehner v. Tri-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Corporation, No. 370562.
If you or a loved one suffered a serious injury (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
