COA 373235 ESTATE OF PAUL NEWTON V MCLAREN PORT HURON Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 12/22/2025

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
DIANE NEWTON, Personal Representative of the
ESTATE OF PAUL NEWTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
December 22, 2025
9:28 AM
v No. 373235
St. Clair Circuit Court
MCLAREN PORT HURON, DOROTHY DUDAS,
R.N., and KURT BRINKER, P.T.,
LC No. 23-002367-NH
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and BORRELLO and CAMERON, JJ.
K. F. KELLY, P.J., (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s order granting summary disposition
in favor of defendants, McLaren Port Huron (“McLaren”), Dorothy Dudas, R.N., and Kurt Brinker,
P.T., on the basis of Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act (“PHCIA”), MCL 691.1471 et seq.
Defendants’ reactions and actions in this case were part of their response to the COVID-19
pandemic, and thus warrant immunity.
As set forth by the majority, this case arises from an incident during the early months of
the COVID-19 pandemic where the decedent, Paul Newton (“Newton”), fell and sustained fatal
injuries during the course of receiving medical treatment at McLaren. As this Court has previously
explained, the Legislature enacted the PHCIA following the issuance of several executive orders
that contained liability immunity provisions for licensed healthcare professionals and healthcare
facilities providing medical services in support of this state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
See Franklin v McLaren Flint, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No.
366226); slip op at 4-5 (explaining the executive responses preceding the enactment of the
PHCIA). MCL 691.1475 provides:
A health care provider or health care facility that provides health care
services in support of this state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is not liable
for an injury, including death, sustained by an individual by reason of those
services, regardless of how, under what circumstances, or by what cause those

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
injuries are sustained, unless it is established that the provision of the services
constituted willful misconduct, gross negligence, intentional and willful criminal
misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm by the health care provider or health
care facility.
Under MCL 691.1477, “[t]he liability protection provided by [the PHCIA] applies retroactively,
and applies on or after March 29, 2020 and before July 14, 2020.”
Newton presented to McLaren complaining of respiratory issues and shortness of breath,
which are common symptoms of COVID-19. Newton initially tested negative for COVID-19, but
medical records note that he was still suspected to potentially have it. He was then placed in a unit
where COVID-19 patients were also being treated. Although Newton was assessed as a high fall
risk and his room was equipped with fall-mitigation devices such as a call light and chair alarm,
his door was closed to reduce the spread of COVID-19, hindering the ability of the staff to
constantly supervise him.
In addition, defendants’ reaction to Newton’s injury was limited based on their response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Dudas testified that when she found Newton on the floor, his chair
alarm was going off. She opined that people were not able to answer the chair alarm because
“there was so much going on with the COVID, that there wasn’t anybody that was available to
answer it right away” and that there were “[s]o many people in rooms with the door closed doing
things for people in isolation.” Dudas also testified that the staffing shortages as a result of the
pandemic prevented her from getting timely assistance from the rapid-response team. Notably,
this case presents a similar situation to the one articulated in Skipper-Baines as being supportive
of immunity. See Skipper-Baines v Bd of Hosp Managers for Flint, ___ Mich App at ___; ___
NW3rd ___ (2024) (Docket No. 365137); slip op at 4 (“For example, if an unrelated emergency
was not timely dealt with because hospital staff were overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, there
might be immunity.”). Defendants’ reactions and actions in this case were part of their response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus warrant immunity. See Franklin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip
op at 8 (noting that the statute covers a defendant “if it provided any healthcare services that
assisted, helped, or promoted the state’s reactions and actions taken as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic”).
Here, there is a sufficient connection between COVID-19 and the healthcare services
provided by defendants to support their claim of immunity and the facts support that defendants
“provide[d] health care services in support of this state’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic . . . .” MCL 691.1475. The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for
summary disposition, and I would affirm.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

-- 2 of 2 --