Nemzin v. Sinai Hospital

372 N.W.2d 667, 143 Mich. App. 798

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 1, 1985
• Docket: Docket 60587
• Status: Published

Opinions

N. J. Lambros, J.

This case presents a question concerning the construction of the medical malpractice arbitration act, MCL 600.5040 et seq.; MSA 27A.5040 et seq. Plaintiff was a patient in defendant hospital, and he brought this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered in a fall from a hospital bed. Plaintiff claimed that he was semi-conscious or unconscious at the time of the fall as the result of an operation and that his fall was due to the negligent failure of hospital employees to raise the bed safety rails into position. Plaintiff executed a standard arbitration agreement when he entered defendant hospital and never revoked it. The circuit court granted defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment, holding that the agreement to arbitrate divested the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff appeals as of right.

Plaintiff argues that his claim is outside the scope of the agreement to arbitrate authorized by the statute, because his claim is based on allegations of ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice or negligence in the performance of professional services. We will assume without deciding that an arbitration agreement like that at issue here is unenforceable unless it strictly complies with the statute.¹ We will also assume without deciding that plaintiff’s claim is based on ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice² or negligence in the performance of professional services.³

Plaintiff relies on the emphasized language in MCL 600.5040(1); MSA 27A.5040(1), which provides:

"The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to the arbitration of a dispute, controversy, or issue arising out of or resulting from injury to, or the death of, a person caused by an error, omission, or negligence in the performance of professional services by a health care provider, hospital, or their agent, or based on a claimed performance of such services without consent, in breach of warranty, or in violation of contract.” (Emphasis added.)

The language on which plaintiff relies is ambiguous. The quoted section, considered in isolation, does not show whether the phrase "in the performance of professional services” was intended to modify the entire phrase "an error, omission, or negligence” or merely the word "negligence”. Other considerations, however, convince us that the phrase was intended to modify only the word "negligence” and that the statute authorizes agreements to arbitrate any claims arising out of health care or treatment based on negligence in the performance of professional services, errors, or omissions by health care providers, hospitals, or their agents.

An established principle of statutory construction is that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless something in the subject matter or dominant purpose of the statute requires a different interpretation. Haveman v Kent County Road Comm’rs, 356 Mich 11, 18; 96 NW2d 153 (1959); Winokur v Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 366 Mich 261, 266; 114 NW2d 233 (1962). Nothing in the subject matter or the dominant purpose of the statute requires a different result here. The Legislature intended this statute to be a measure to contain rapidly-escalating health care costs by reducing litigation. That purpose would be served, not hindered, by construing the statute to authorize agreements to arbitrate claims of ordinary negligence arising out of health care or treatment as well as claims of medical malpractice or negligence in the performance of professional services.

Moreover, the words and phrases used in a particular section of the statute must be assigned meanings which harmonize with the statute as a whole. See Arrowhead Development Co v Livingston County Road Comm, 413 Mich 505, 516; 322 NW2d 702 (1982). Broad language used in other sections of the statute at issue here shows that the Legislature did not intend to limit the scope of arbitration under the statute to claims falling within narrow definitions of "medical malpractice” or "negligence in the performance of professional services”. See MCL 600.5041(1); MSA 27A.5041(1):

"A person who receives health care from a health care provider may, if offered, execute an agreement to arbitrate a dispute, controversy, or issue arising out of health care or treatment by a health care provider who is not an employee of a hospital.” (Emphasis added.)

See also MCL 600.5042(1); MSA 27A.5042(1):

"A person who receives health care in a hospital may execute an agreement to arbitrate a dispute, controversy, or issue arising out of health care or treatment rendered by the hospital. A person receiving emergency health care or treatment may be offered the option to arbitrate but shall be offered the option after the emergency care or treatment is completed.” (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff asserts that an ordinary patient would not understand that claims based on ordinary negligence would fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. We cannot agree. The following provision of the standard agreement plaintiff executed clearly conveyed the broad scope of the agreement:

"I understand that this hospital and I by signing this document agree to arbitrate any claims or disputes (except for disputes over charges for services rendered) which may arise in the future out of or in connection with the health care rendered to me during this hospital stay and/or emergency room visit by this hospital, its employees and those of its independent staff doctors and consultants who have agreed to arbitrate.” (Emphasis added.)

Other issues raised by plaintiff are without merit.⁴

Affirmed.

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J., concurred.

1 See Ewald v Pontiac General Hospital, 121 Mich App 793, 797; 329 NW2d 495 (1982); but compare E E Tripp Excavating Contractor, Inc v Jackson County, 60 Mich App 221, 235, 241-247; 230 NW2d 556 (1975).

2 Compare, for example, Kambas v St Joseph’s Mercy Hospital of Detroit, 389 Mich 249, 254-256; 205 NW2d 431 (1973).

3 Compare, for example, D’Antoni v Sara Mayo Hospital, 144 So 2d 643 (La App, 1962).

4 Plaintiffs argument that the statute deprived him of the constitutional right to an impartial decisionmaker is refuted by Morris v Metriyakool, 418 Mich 423; 344 NW2d 736 (1984). Plaintiff also argues that the statute violates Const 1963, art 4, § 24, which requires that "[n]o law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title,” but this argument is based on a fundamental mistake. Plaintiffs argument is directed to the short title which the Legislature authorized in 1975 PA 140, § 3 for citation to the statute, the "R. Hood-McNeely-Geake Malpractice Arbitration Act of 1975.” The actual title of the statute is:

"AN ACT to amend Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, entitled as amended 'An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the courts of this state; the powers and duties of such courts, and of the judges and other officers thereof; the forms and attributes of civil claims and actions; the time within which civil actions and proceedings may be brought in said courts; pleading, evidence, practice and procedure in civil and criminal actions and proceedings in said courts; to provide remedies and penalties for the violation of certain provisions of this act; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with, or contravening any of the provisions of this act,’ as amended, being sections 600.101 to 600.9934 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, by adding section 5033 and chapter 50a.”

Plaintiff has waived any argument that the actual title of the statute is insufficient. See Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).