Michigan Appeals Court Narrowed Pandemic Liability Immunity
A new ruling clarifies when medical facilities may be immune from negligence claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Updated on Sept. 30, 2026 in COVID-19
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had granted broad immunity to a health care facility under the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act. The ruling affects how negligence claims are handled for care provided during the early months of the pandemic.
Why it matters
This decision clarifies the scope of legal protections for health care facilities in Michigan by establishing that immunity is not automatic for all claims occurring during the pandemic. It requires a clear connection between alleged negligence and services specifically provided in support of the COVID-19 response.
The appellate court reviewed six patient admissions for the decedent Frances Thomas occurring between February 22, 2020, and June 21, 2020. The court determined there was no record evidence connecting the alleged negligence during the March-April 2020 window to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The players
Michigan Court of Appeals
An intermediate appellate court responsible for interpreting state statutes and reviewing lower court rulings.
Frances Thomas
The patient whose medical care and six admissions at a facility are the subject of the malpractice litigation.
The details
The court examined whether specific health care services were provided in support of the pandemic response, a requirement for immunity under the state act. Without evidence linking the care to pandemic-related efforts during the disputed timeframe, the facility does not qualify for statutory protection. The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings.
Timeline
February 22, 2020 to June 21, 2020: Patient admissions occurred.
March 29, 2020 to April 14, 2020: Period where immunity was incorrectly granted.
March 29, 2020 to July 14, 2020: Initial immunity window granted by the trial court.
May 28, 2020 to June 21, 2020: Specific patient claims found to lack immunity.
Health Landscape
This decision addresses the application of the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act in a post-pandemic legal landscape. It highlights the shifting judicial scrutiny regarding institutional accountability for patient care provided during the height of state emergency responses.
This development clarifies that patients or their representatives have potential legal pathways to challenge the quality of care received during the pandemic. If you have concerns about medical care provided in institutional settings during this period, discuss your situation with an attorney specializing in medical malpractice.
The takeaway
The appellate ruling ensures that pandemic immunity is not an absolute shield for health care providers when evidence of a link to pandemic-related care is absent. Patients should be aware that immunity protections remain subject to judicial review based on the specific circumstances of their clinical care.
Further reading
For broader context on state health policies, see the latest updates on COVID-19.
