DEBRA JEAN STEELE V ST LAWRENCE HOSP AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DEBRA JEAN STEELE,
UNPUBLISHED
April 16, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
ST. LAWRENCE HOSPITAL AND
HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
SPARROW HEALTH SYSTEMS, and
RALPH MICHAEL KELLY, M.D.,
No. 283899
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 07-000066-NZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
MURPHY, P.J. (concurring).
I concur in affirming the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition for the reasons provided by the trial court and the conclusions reached in the majority
opinion.
I write separately to add that I would confine the ruling to the facts in this case. I can
conceive of situations where a physician’s egregious conduct performed under the guise of an
examination would be so patently inappropriate that medical judgment beyond the realm of
common knowledge and experience would be wholly unnecessary to pursue and establish a tort
cause of action. Additionally, if such were the case inapplicable statutory mandates governing
medical malpractice cases would not apply. This case does not fall into that category: The
particular claims plaintiff made here clearly require medical expertise and judgment to resolve.
As extreme examples to the contrary, if, during a routine examination, a doctor punched a
patient in the face or attempted sexual penetration, the patient most certainly could commence
an intentional tort action against the doctor without providing a notice of intent or procuring an
affidavit of merit opining that the doctor violated the standard of care. I realize that in some
instances it may be difficult to draw the line between those cases requiring medical judgment
and expertise and those that do not. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, if a patient consents to a standard medical examination or procedure, a doctor cannot
claim the defense of consent to an intentional tort claim if his conduct impermissibly exceeds
the scope of the patient’s consent.
/s/ William B. Murphy
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.
