Kasandra Choate v. Hurley Medical Center

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 15, 2025
Docket369731
StatusUnpublished

This text of Kasandra Choate v. Hurley Medical Center (Kasandra Choate v. Hurley Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kasandra Choate v. Hurley Medical Center, (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

KASANDRA CHOATE, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 1:49 PM

v No. 369731 Genesee Circuit Court HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER and HURLEY LC No. 23-118646-NH MEDICAL GROUP, PC, doing business as HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellants.

Before: WALLACE, P.J., and RIORDAN and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this medical-malpractice action, defendants appeal by leave granted1 the trial court’s order denying them summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a valid claim) and (C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). On appeal, defendants argue the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary disposition because plaintiff’s complaint was barred under the common-law wrongful-conduct rule and its statutory counterpart, MCL 600.2955b(1). We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 29, 2020, plaintiff and her nine-year-old daughter were involved in a single- car rollover accident. According to the accident report, plaintiff drove off the road and hit a mailbox. Thereafter, she lost control of the vehicle and jumped an embankment, which sent her vehicle airborne. Neither plaintiff nor her daughter were restrained by a seat belt during the accident, and both sustained injuries. A Crash Data Retrieval report from the accident showed that

1 Choate v Hurley Med Ctr, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 20, 2024 (Docket No. 369731).

-1- plaintiff was traveling at 155 mph before the crash. Additionally, testing of plaintiff’s blood after the accident was positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and amphetamines.

Emergency personnel removed plaintiff from the vehicle at the scene of the accident. She was transported to Hurley Hospital with numerous injuries, including a severe spinal fracture with epidural hemorrhage and spinal cord compression, multiple rib fractures, a kidney contusion, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and a parietal lobe cortical contusion. Plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries and was hospitalized for weeks after the accident. In one of these surgeries, plaintiff was reported to have sat in prone position for over 15 hours. In December 2020, while still hospitalized, plaintiff developed pressure wounds which worsened to Stage 4 pressure wounds and became infected and necrotic. Plaintiff underwent two debridement surgeries and additional hospitalization to treat these wounds.

In March 2021, plaintiff faced criminal charges for her conduct on November 29, 2020. Plaintiff was charged with the felony offense of reckless driving causing serious impairment of a body function of another person, MCL 257.626(3); and the misdemeanor offenses of fourth-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(7) and(8); contributing to the delinquency of a minor, MCL 750.145; and a moving violation resulting in serious impairment of a body function of another person, MCL 257.601d(2). Plaintiff pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of reckless driving, MCL 257.626, which is a misdemeanor. Plaintiff also pleaded no contest to the moving violation causing serious impairment and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

In March 2023, plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging medical malpractice related to the pressure wounds. She alleged that, while she was hospitalized, nursing staff failed to recognize the wounds and develop an appropriate treatment plan. She alleged this failure caused her pressure injuries to progress to severe Stage 4 pressure wounds that required extensive medical and surgical intervention.

Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing that plaintiff’s wrongful conduct related to the car accident precluded her medical-malpractice claims under MCL 600.2955b because her bodily injury occurred during plaintiff’s commission of a felony or flight therefrom. In response, plaintiff argued MCL 600.2955b was inapplicable because plaintiff did not sustain the bodily injuries in question, i.e., the pressure wounds, during the commission of a felony. In a reply brief, defendants raised the additional argument that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the common-law wrongful-conduct rule, arguing that her wrongful conduct relative to the accident was the proximate cause of her injuries.

The trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court explained that defendants presented undisputed evidence that plaintiff’s conduct during the accident constituted a felony; however, MCL 600.2955b bars claims for personal injury when the injury that forms the basis of the claim can be shown to have been suffered during the claimant’s commission of or flight from a felony, and defendants have not made such a showing. Likewise, the trial court explained the common-law wrongful-conduct rule applies when the wrongful conduct was an integral and essential part of the plaintiff’s case and will not apply when a felonious act is merely a condition and not a contributing cause of the injury. The trial court reasoned that whether plaintiff’s actions constituted a proximate cause of her

-2- injuries was an issue for a jury, and defendants offered no evidence of causation. This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159; 934 NW2d 665 (2019). Although defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), we review their arguments under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because defendants attached documentary evidence beyond the pleadings in support of their motion. See id. at 159-160. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “tests the factual sufficiency of a claim.” Id. at 160 (emphasis omitted). When considering a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the trial court “must consider all evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Id. The trial court properly grants summary disposition when the moving party establishes, except for the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 369; 775 NW2d 618 (2009).

III. MCL 600.2955b

Defendants argue plaintiff’s medical-malpractice claims are precluded by MCL 600.2955b because plaintiff’s personal injuries were sustained during her flight from the commission of a felony. We disagree.

In relevant part, MCL 600.2955b states as follows:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall dismiss with prejudice a plaintiff’s action for an individual’s bodily injury or death and shall order the plaintiff to pay each defendant’s costs and actual attorney fees if the bodily injury or death occurred during 1 or more of the following:

(a) The individual’s commission, or flight from the commission, of a felony.

(b) The individual’s acts or flight from acts that the finder of fact in the civil action finds, by clear and convincing evidence, to constitute all the elements of a felony.

* * *

(7) As used in this section:

(a) “Commission of a felony” means either of the following:

(i) A conviction for a felony.

(ii) An adjudication under . . . the probate code . . . an individual responsible for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.

-3- (b) “Felony” means a violation of a law of this state or of the United States that is designated as a felony or that is punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1 year.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc
684 N.W.2d 864 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2004)
Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc
645 N.W.2d 34 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2002)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Old Republic Insurance
644 N.W.2d 715 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2002)
Manning v. Bishop of Marquette
76 N.W.2d 75 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1956)
Yudashkin v. Holden
637 N.W.2d 257 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2001)
Orzel v. Scott Drug Co.
537 N.W.2d 208 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1995)
Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.
775 N.W.2d 618 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2009)
Craig v. Oakwood Hospital
684 N.W.2d 296 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kasandra Choate v. Hurley Medical Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasandra-choate-v-hurley-medical-center-michctapp-2025.