Saylor Lavallii v. Central Michigan University, 354833

Plaintiff Lavallii was a CMU football player who took a medical/noncount “redshirt” year after concussion-like symptoms; outside doctors cleared him to play but CMU did not.
Dr. Matthew Jackson, CMU’s team physician, reviewed records, consulted staff, spoke with plaintiff, and declined to medically clear plaintiff to resume playing; he sent a letter explaining his decision and citing medical guidelines.
Plaintiff sued alleging medical malpractice/ negligence for failing to examine and clear him; earlier proceedings resulted in an appellate reversal as to Jackson and remand, leaving Jackson as the sole defendant.
On remand Jackson moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (governmental immunity) and (C)(8) (challenging plaintiff’s affidavit of merit); the trial court denied both motions.
The Court of Appeals (this opinion) affirms denial of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), holding a factual dispute exists whether Jackson provided "medical care or treatment" and whether plaintiff was his patient, and declines to address the MCR 2.116(C)(8) issue for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the governmental-hospital exception (MCL 691.1407(4)) is limited to medical-malpractice claims	Lavallii: Exception covers injuries related to medical care or treatment regardless of label, so ordinary-negligence claims can proceed	Jackson: Exception applies only to medical-malpractice claims, not ordinary negligence	Court: Exception is not limited to malpractice; statutory language covers claims tied to medical care/treatment regardless of label
Whether Jackson’s refusal to clear plaintiff constituted "providing medical care or treatment" and whether plaintiff was his patient	Lavallii: Jackson applied medical judgment (reviewed records, consulted staff, discussed with plaintiff) and thus provided medical care to a patient	Jackson: Decision was administrative (eligibility/roster), not medical treatment; plaintiff was not his patient	Court: Material factual disputes exist on whether Jackson applied medical knowledge for plaintiff’s benefit and whether plaintiff was his patient; denial of C(7) summary disposition affirmed
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Jackson’s MCR 2.116(C)(8) challenge to the affidavit of merit	Lavallii: Agreed court had jurisdiction over the appeal as argued by Jackson only as to C(7)	Jackson: Sought review of both C(7) and C(8) rulings	Court: Jurisdiction exists only for the C(7) governmental-immunity denial; C(8) challenge is not reviewable in this appeal

Musulin v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 214 Mich. App. 277 (1995) (interpreting governmental‑hospital waiver broadly to include claims beyond pure malpractice)
Reed v. State, 324 Mich. App. 449 (2018) (standard of review for governmental immunity determinations and treating evidence in favor of nonmoving party under MCR 2.116(C)(7))
Wigfall v. Detroit, 504 Mich. 330 (2019) (affirming general rule that governmental entities are immune from tort liability unless statutory exceptions apply)
Driver v. Naini, 490 Mich. 239 (2011) (statutory interpretation principles: apply plain language where statute unambiguous)
Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich. 545 (2006) (use of medical dictionary to define terms where statute is silent; guidance on interpreting "medical care or treatment")
Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186 (2002) (party seeking to impose liability must show the exception to governmental immunity applies)