MARTIN SLOBIN V HENRY FORD HEALTH CARE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM SLOBIN, Personal Representative of
the ESTATE OF MARTIN SLOBIN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 9, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 216196
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-720935-CP
HENRY FORD HEALTH CARE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: White, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
ZAHRA, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the reasoning and conclusion expressed in section III(C) of the lead opinion
regarding the failure of plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. I further concur in the
conclusion reached in section III(A) of the lead opinion regarding the failure of plaintiff’s
common law claim to obtain medical records at a reasonable fee.1 However, I respectfully
dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition
in regard to plaintiff’s MCPA and concert of action claims. I would affirm the trial court’s
dismissal of plaintiff’s entire suit.
I conclude that plaintiff’s MCPA claim fails as a matter of law because obtaining medical
records for purposes of litigation is not “primarily for personal, family, or household use” and,
therefore, does not fit the definition of “trade or commerce” under the MCPA, MCL 445.902(d).
See Zine v Chrysler Corp, 236 Mich App 261, 270-275; 600 NW2d 384 (1999). If litigation
support items were subject to the protection afforded under the MCPA, court reporters, expert
witnesses and attorneys could be subject to suit for charging allegedly grossly excessive fees.
These goods and services fall outside the scope of the protection provided by the plain meaning
of the MCPA. Further, even if I were to assume that such a cause of action could be maintained
as it relates to documents copied for purposes of litigation, plaintiff has failed as a matter of law
to present evidence that the fees charged were grossly in excess of the price at which similar
1
Our Legislature has provided patients a statutory right, pursuant to the patients’ bill of rights of
the Public Health Code, to receive a copy of their medical records for a reasonable fee. MCL
333.20201(2)(b). I conclude that the Public Health Code provides the only remedy available to
plaintiff in this case. At the time the Public Health Code was enacted, there was not a common
law right to copy medical records at a reasonable cost and I see no basis for establishing one
now.
-1-
services are sold. The reproduction of medical records is a labor-intensive service that requires
well-trained personnel. An employee must identify and locate the relevant medical records and
insure that the patient whose medical records are being reproduced has properly executed a
release before any records may be released. Given the nature of this service, I conclude as a
matter of law that a fee of $44.26 for 22 pages of medical records is not grossly excessive, even
if, as plaintiff claims, that fee is twice the amount some of defendant’s competitors charge for
similar records.
Finally, since I conclude plaintiff’s predicate causes of action fail, plaintiff’s concert of
action claim must also fail as a matter of law. I would affirm in its entirety the judgment entered
by the trial court.2
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
2
Given my conclusion that each of plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law, I do not consider the
merit of defendant’s voluntary payment doctrine claim.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
