Lucas v. Awaad
299 Mich. App. 345
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Dr. Yasser Awaad, a board-certified pediatric neurologist, allegedly misdiagnosed epilepsy/seizure disorder in pediatric patients to inflate Oakwood-related billings; Oakwood defendants employed him and had revenue-sharing arrangements that purportedly incentivized improper billing.
- Three related lawsuits arise from these allegations: Docket 292785 (Amber Lucas, parent of misdiagnosed children), Docket 292786 (parents of minor patients), and Docket 295973 (minor plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims).
- Plaintiffs claim Oakwood entities are vicariously liable for Awaad’s misfeasance and that fraud, silent fraud, conspiracy, and MCPA violations occurred alongside medical malpractice.
- The trial court granted/denied various motions on summary disposition and affidavits of merit/meritorious defense; the appeals challenge whether claims sound in medical malpractice, whether the MCPA applies, and whether affidavits meet statutory requirements.
- The court’s ultimate disposition: affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings; key rulings address whether certain claims sound in medical malpractice, whether MCPA applies to medical practice, and the sufficiency/timeliness of affidavits of meritorious defense and merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Lucas’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim sound in medical malpractice? | Lucas argues it is an independent bystander claim, not medical malpractice. | Awaad’s actions occurred within a professional relationship and involve medical judgment. | Yes; sounds in medical malpractice; trial court erred in denial of summary disposition. |
| Do Lucas’s fraud and silent fraud claims survive? | Fraud claims allege knowingly false epilepsy diagnoses to inflate billings. | Fraud claims require medical-j judgment evidence; silent fraud requires a duty to disclose. | Fraud sounds in medical malpractice and silent fraud lacks a duty to disclose; dismissal warranted. |
| Is the Docket 292786 MCPA claim barred by the regulatory-law exception? | MCPA protects consumers in entrepreneurial aspects of medicine. | Medicine is specifically authorized by law; MCPA exception applies. | Yes; MCPA claim barred by MCL 445.904(1)(a) as transactions specifically authorized by law. |
| Were the affidavits of meritorious defense/affidavits of merit proper in Docket 295973? | Affidavits sufficiently stated standard of care and breach. | Awaad’s affidavit was untimely; Duchowny/Johnston affidavits lacked EEG-specific defense. | Affidavits of merit sufficient; Awaad’s affidavit untimely; Duchowny/Johnston affidavits valid; remand for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc., 471 Mich 411 (2004) (two-part test for medical malpractice threshold)
- Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27 (2005) (medical-malpractice threshold; expert testimony required for liability)
- Smith v Stolberg, 231 Mich App 256 (1998) (de novo standard for summary disposition under 2.116(C)(8))
- Kalaj v Khan, 295 Mich App 420 (2012) (elements of medical malpractice claim (standard, breach, causation, damages))
- Ligons v Detroit Med Ctr, 490 Mich 61 (2011) (affidavits; prove standard of care and breach; relation to merit)
- Nelson v Ho, 222 Mich App 74 (1997) (MCPA scope in medical contexts; entrepreneurial vs medical-practice conduct)
- Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich 203 (2007) (MCPA exception for regulated general transactions; construction)
- Wlosinski v Cohn, 269 Mich App 303 (2005) (informed consent; physician duty and disclosure to patients)
- Doe v Mills, 212 Mich App 73 (1995) (outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- Roberts v Saffell, 280 Mich App 397 (2008) (silent fraud; duty of disclosure principal)
- Roberts v Saffell (supreme court cited), 483 Mich 1089 (2009) (affirmed silent fraud duty standard)