In a significant published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in Estate of Jokinen v. Beaumont Hospital–Troy that hospitals and nursing homes are not automatically shielded from liability for medical negligence simply because care was provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. This ruling reaffirms that immunity under Michigan’s Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (PHCIA) is limited and does not apply to ordinary malpractice claims unless the care in question directly supported the state’s pandemic response.
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we welcome this important clarification from the appellate court – because patients and families deserve answers and accountability, even in times of crisis.
Background of the Case
Shirley Jokinen, an 88-year-old woman, was admitted to Beaumont Hospital–Troy in April 2020 after suffering a fall. At that time, she did not have COVID-19, was not tested positive for the virus, and received no COVID-related treatment. However, she developed a preventable pressure ulcer while at the hospital, which worsened after her transfer to a nursing home. She ultimately died of sepsis due to the infected wound.
Her estate filed a lawsuit alleging medical negligence. Both Beaumont and the nursing facility argued that they were immune under the PHCIA, a law passed during the pandemic that offers limited immunity to providers offering services in support of Michigan’s COVID-19 response. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.
What the Court of Appeals Decided
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissals and sent the case back to the trial court. The panel concluded that Shirley Jokinen’s care did not fall within the scope of the PHCIA because:
- She was not admitted for COVID-19, never tested positive, and received no care tied to the state’s COVID-19 response;
- The allegations involved routine wound care failures, not pandemic-specific decisions;
- Immunity cannot be based on vague claims that all care during the pandemic was chaotic or constrained by emergency protocols.
The Court also warned against an overly broad interpretation of the law, stating that it would undermine the statute’s clear limits and improperly shield providers from accountability for harm unrelated to the pandemic response.
Why This Matters
This decision makes clear that patients harmed by negligent care during the pandemic still have the right to pursue justice. While the PHCIA was designed to protect frontline providers from liability in specific pandemic-response situations, it was never meant to give blanket immunity for all care delivered between March and July 2020.
“The court drew an important line here,” said Donna MacKenzie, attorney at Olsman MacKenzie Peacock. “Immunity was never meant to be a free pass for substandard care. Families like the Jokinens deserve a full and fair opportunity to hold providers accountable when their loved ones are harmed – even in a pandemic.”
We’re Here to Help
If your loved one suffered harm during the pandemic, and you were told there was nothing you could do, this opinion offers a path forward. Our experienced team is here to review your case, explain your options, and help you pursue justice.
Contact Olsman MacKenzie Peacock today for a free consultation. Let us help you hold negligent providers accountable – because every patient’s life and dignity matter.