Feyz v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp.

In Feyz v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp., 475 Mich. 663 (2006), the Supreme Court of Michigan denied immunity to a hospital for decisions made about peer review, observing that courts should not defer on all medical issues to state or hospital administrators whose procedures are inadequate and whose motives can be suspect:

Additionally, we are not persuaded by the argument that courts are incompetent to review hospital staffing decisions as a basis for adopting the judicial nonintervention doctrine. This claim overlooks the reality that courts routinely review complex claims of all kinds. Forgoing review of valid legal claims, simply because those claims arise from hospital staffing decisions, amounts to a grant of unfettered discretion to private hospitals to disregard the legal rights of those who are the subject of a staffing decision, even when such decisions are precluded by statute. This is not to say that hospital staffing decisions, which involve specialized medical and business knowledge and considerations, are not entitled to some measure of deference. However, when those staffing decisions violate the legal rights of others, the judiciary must exercise its obligation to adjudicate legal disputes, except to the extent that the citizens of this state, through their elected representatives, have made a policy choice to shield such decisions from liability.