Appeal court reopens case against paramedics who falsely declared woman dead

After notifying the Oakland County Coroner’s Office, Mattison asked the family to contact a funeral home.

The person who came to pick Beauchamp up saw her chest moving, asked if she was actually dead, and was told that paramedics had attributed the movement to the medication.

Beauchamp was wrapped in a sheet and taken to the funeral home in a body bag. When the bag was opened, Beauchamp’s eyes were open and she was gasping for air.

She was taken to a hospital where she died about two months later.

Howard Linden, the personal representative of Beauchamp’s estate, sued the defendants for gross negligence, claiming they breached their duties and that their conduct was the proximate cause of Beauchamp’s injuries. The plaintiff also sought reasonable medical, funeral and burial expenses.

Defendants moved for summary judgment under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8) in lieu of an answer. No discovery was made.

The Oakland County District Court granted the defendants’ motion.

However, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient facts to sustain the paramedical claim.

“The court held that sovereign immunity applied because these four firefighter defendants were not the proximate cause of Beauchamp’s injuries. However, this determination was premature,” the judges explained. “Given the lack of evidence, there was insufficient evidence for a court to decide the question of proximate causation.”

Where there is no reasonable chance that disclosure will provide actual evidence of a claim, summary injunction may be appropriate. However, that was not the case here because the issue of proximate cause was still in dispute.

“There was NO “Beyond the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, no evidence was presented to the court as to why Beauchamp died or the extent to which her death was due to her pre-existing medical conditions or the actions of the fire department defendants,” the panel stressed.

Because further evidence is required on the issue of proximate cause with respect to the paramedics, the court erred in granting their motion for summary judgment.

The judges added that the defendants could renew their applications if necessary after the evidence had been taken.

As regards the police defendants, the Court rightly granted their motion for summary disposal, even if it misapplied the principle of public duty.

“Although the facts may show that the actions of the fire department defendants were the proximate cause of Beauchamp’s injuries, there was nothing in the complaint to suggest that Mattison’s or Bond’s conduct could be the proximate cause,” the panel wrote. “In fact, it is irrefutable that the police department defendants were not in the best position to meet Beauchamp’s medical needs when four paramedics were on the scene, to whom Mattison and Bond communicated the families’ concerns. Therefore, summary disposition is appropriate with respect to Mattison and Bond because it is unlikely that the evidence would reveal actual support for plaintiff’s position.”

The case is remanded to Oakland County for further proceedings.

The unpublished opinion was written by Judges Jane E. Markey, Brock A. Swartzle and Philip P. Mariani.

Last year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Eastern District of Michigan that found the emergency responders were entitled to qualified immunity and that the co-defendant city was not liable for any constitutional violation.