Elizabeth Cuevas v. the Board of Hospital Managers of Hurley Medic
329660
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Elizabeth Cuevas, a physician assistant at Hurley Medical Center, sued Hurley and two supervisors (Annette Napier and Melissa Bachman) asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and a Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) claim after workplace disputes and her eventual resignation while on medical leave.
- Relevant employer actions: denial of a schedule change, dress-code reminder email to staff, a verbal reprimand, lowered performance evaluation scores (approved by clinical supervisor Dr. Towfiq), and relocation of Cuevas’s office.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing individual governmental immunity for IIED claims and that Cuevas failed to state a WPA claim. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed denial of summary disposition: IIED denial under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity) and WPA denial under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (factual sufficiency).
- The Court reversed: held individual defendants entitled to governmental immunity and Cuevas’s WPA claim failed because she did not show protected activity or an adverse employment action/constructive discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants are immune from IIED suit | Napier and Bachman acted maliciously and outside scope of employment after the scanning issue | Actions were within employment scope, done in good faith, and discretionary — so MCL 691.1407(2) immunity applies | Reversed: defendants protected by individual governmental immunity (acts within scope, in good faith, discretionary) |
| Whether conduct met IIED elements (extreme/outrageous; severe distress) | Workplace actions were severe and stemming from supervisory authority, meeting IIED standards | Conduct was routine supervisory decisions, not extreme or outrageous | Reversed: conduct not extreme/outrageous or severe enough to sustain IIED |
| Whether Cuevas engaged in WPA-protected activity | She reported the document-scanning backlog and its patient-safety implications (argued under MCL 333.20176a and WPA) | Her report involved internal procedure noncompliance (not a state law/regulation violation); others (Bachman) discovered/reported the issue first | Reversed: no protected activity under WPA because no report of an existing violation of state law/regulation was shown |
| Whether Cuevas suffered an adverse action / was constructively discharged under WPA | Ongoing hostile conditions forced her resignation (constructive discharge) | She resigned while on medical leave, was not demoted or terminated, and had options to continue employment; conditions were not objectively intolerable | Reversed: no materially adverse employment action or constructive discharge as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich 124 (court reviews grant/denial of summary disposition de novo)
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich App 406 (procedural standards for MCR 2.116(C)(7) review)
- In re Casey Estate, 306 Mich App 252 (standards for MCR 2.116(C)(10) review)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 (test for individual governmental immunity in intentional torts)
- Oliver v. Smith, 290 Mich App 678 (subjective good-faith requirement for immunity)
- Hayley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Mich App 571 (elements of IIED claim)
- Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175 (extreme/outrageous conduct standard)
- Lucas v. Awaad, 299 Mich App 345 (insults and petty oppressions insufficient for IIED)
- Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1 (WPA requires an existing or ongoing violation; future/anticipated violations not covered)
- Smith v. City of Flint, 313 Mich App 141 (definition/analysis of materially adverse employment action)
- Truel v. City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125 (elements of a WPA claim)
- Vagts v. Perry Drug Stores, 204 Mich App 481 (constructive discharge standard)