P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals

P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital

DecidedAugust 15, 2024

Docket365711

StatusUnpublished

This text of P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital (P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital) 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

P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital, (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

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

BLAKE PUTMAN, M.D., UNPUBLISHED August 15, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 365711 Tuscola Circuit Court HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL, LC No. 2022-031670-NZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SHAPIRO*, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority opinion except as to the tortious interference claim which I conclude should not have been dismissed.

First, I disagree with the majority’s view that the patient-physician relationship does not have a contractual aspect. “A physician—patient relationship is contractual and requires the consent, express or implied, of both the doctor and the patient.” Oja v Kin, 229 Mich App 184, 190 (1998). I recognize that delivery of medical care has become far more of a profit-centered “business” over the decades and that multi-physician practices have their own contractual relationship with patients. But I reject the claim that the only contractual relationship or business expectancy is between the patient and the corporate practice, a claim inconsistent with how Michigan has always viewed the doctor-patient relationship and the expectations of patients.

Second, I disagree with the majority on the question whether defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship between the plaintiff and his patients. Defendant’s employees, on instruction from their managers, repeatedly and affirmatively lied to plaintiff’s patients, telling them that they did not know how to reach plaintiff or even if he was still practicing. These acts of deception were clearly intended to interfere with plaintiff doctor’s relationship with his patients and I find it shocking that a medical facility would take affirmative action to prevent a patient from seeing the physician of their choosing with whom they had an ongoing relationship.

*Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1- Accordingly, I would reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s tortious interference claim and remand for further proceedings.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-2-

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

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

BLAKE PUTMAN, M.D., UNPUBLISHED August 15, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 365711 Tuscola Circuit Court HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL, LC No. 2022-031670-NZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SHAPIRO*, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the majority opinion except as to the tortious interference claim which I conclude should not have been dismissed.

First, I disagree with the majority’s view that the patient-physician relationship does not have a contractual aspect. “A physician—patient relationship is contractual and requires the consent, express or implied, of both the doctor and the patient.” Oja v Kin, 229 Mich App 184, 190 (1998). I recognize that delivery of medical care has become far more of a profit-centered “business” over the decades and that multi-physician practices have their own contractual relationship with patients. But I reject the claim that the only contractual relationship or business expectancy is between the patient and the corporate practice, a claim inconsistent with how Michigan has always viewed the doctor-patient relationship and the expectations of patients.

Second, I disagree with the majority on the question whether defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship between the plaintiff and his patients. Defendant’s employees, on instruction from their managers, repeatedly and affirmatively lied to plaintiff’s patients, telling them that they did not know how to reach plaintiff or even if he was still practicing. These acts of deception were clearly intended to interfere with plaintiff doctor’s relationship with his patients and I find it shocking that a medical facility would take affirmative action to prevent a patient from seeing the physician of their choosing with whom they had an ongoing relationship.

*Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1- Accordingly, I would reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s tortious interference claim and remand for further proceedings.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

P Blake Putman Md v. Hills and Dales General Hospital, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-blake-putman-md-v-hills-and-dales-general-hospital-michctapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack