Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc.
305 Mich. App. 519
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff (licensed practical nurse) worked at defendant nonprofit community hospital from 2001 until his termination in April 2006; he alleges termination was retaliation after he reported a coworker’s alleged malpractice that he believed caused a patient’s death.
- Plaintiff sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing preemption/exclusivity under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and lack of a recognized public-policy basis.
- The trial court initially denied dismissal, later held that MCL 333.20176a provides a public-policy basis, and the case proceeded to jury trial resulting in a plaintiff verdict.
- On appeal defendant challenged (inter alia) the denial of summary disposition, evidentiary rulings, discovery (return of confidential nonparty medical records), damages (front pay, mitigation, emotional distress), and the after-acquired-evidence issue; the trial court had issued a protective order and redactions rather than returning records.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo legal issues (summary disposition, JNOV) and for abuse of discretion evidentiary/discovery/damage-procedure decisions, and affirmed the trial court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s wrongful-discharge claim is barred or unsupported as a matter of law | Landin relied on public-health statutes (MCL 333.20176a) as objective statutory policy protecting reports of malpractice; thus wrongful discharge claim valid | Hospital argued claim was preempted or exclusively remedied under WPA and that Suchodolski limits public-policy exceptions so plaintiff lacks statutory basis | Court held MCL 333.20176a embodies public policy that can support a wrongful-discharge claim (fits Suchodolski exceptions) and WPA did not preclude claim because plaintiff reported coworker malpractice, not merely a statutory-code violation handled by WPA |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed on causal connection (retaliation) | Plaintiff produced evidence timing, coworker-initiated complaints after his report, disparate discipline, and employer’s inquiry about widow’s legal action | Employer pointed to policy violations (falsifying medication administration records) and prior admissions by plaintiff as legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination | Court found record created factual dispute for jury on causation; summary disposition properly denied |
| Whether defendant could compel return of nonparty medical records plaintiff possessed | Plaintiff had possessed/copied records long before defendant sought return; records already used in litigation; trial court imposed protective/redaction order | Defendant sought return asserting physician-patient privilege and unauthorized removal | Court affirmed denial of return; physician-patient privilege cannot be resurrected after disclosure and both parties had used records; protective measures and redaction were appropriate |
| Whether damages or remedial issues (front pay, mitigation, after-acquired evidence, emotional distress) were legal questions for judge or speculative/warrant remittitur | Plaintiff sought front pay, emotional damages; mitigation and after-acquired-evidence issues are fact questions for jury; emotional distress evidence sufficient | Defendant argued front pay speculative, mitigation should limit award, after-acquired evidence should bar relief as matter of law, emotional damages excessive | Court held front pay and mitigation are fact issues for jury/trial court discretion; after-acquired-evidence effect is factual (may limit relief but not bar liability); emotional damages and future wage award were within range and not subject to remittitur |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commission, 477 Mich 197 (de novo review standard for summary disposition)
- Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 412 Mich 692 (public-policy exceptions to at-will employment)
- Terrien v. Zwit, 467 Mich 56 (public policy must be derived from objective legal sources)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 ((C)(10) evidentiary view and summary disposition standards)
- Morris v. Clawson Tank Co., 459 Mich 256 (mitigation of damages is fact-intensive)
- Wright v. Restaurant Concept Management, Inc., 210 Mich App 105 (after-acquired evidence affects relief; factual determination)