UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, and 

DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL AND 

UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTER 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. 

Chris E. Davis (P52159) 

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 

Livonia, MI 48152 

Phone: (248) 473-2990 

Email: cdavis@mpas.org

Attorney for Plaintiff 

_____________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 

1. The Plaintiff, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.(MPAS), brings this 

action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 10807-10827, the 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI). 

2. MPAS challenges the refusal of the defendants, the Detroit Medical Center (DMC) 

and Detroit Receiving Hospital and University Health Center (Detroit Receiving), to 

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 01/29/09 Page 1 of 8
disclose documents they claim are protected by the peer review privilege relating to 

the death of Patient A and the injuries suffered by Patient B and Patient C. 1

 

3. MPAS is charged with the responsibility both under federal and state law to 

investigate allegations of abuse and neglect against persons with disabilities. 

4. The Defendants’ refusal to provide the documents at issue has interfered with 

Plaintiff’s investigative responsibilities and resulted in Plaintiff being denied its rights 

pursuant to the PAIMI Act to investigate the suspected incidents of abuse and neglect 

under 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(A). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

6. Plaintiff’s federal claims are made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801-10827. 

7. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. 

8. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as all of the 

events and omissions complained of below occurred in this district. 

PARTIES 

9. The Plaintiff, MPAS, is a Michigan non-profit corporation. 

10. The Governor of Michigan has designated MPAS as the state’s protection and 

advocacy system, pursuant to MCL 330.1931 (1) with the responsibility to enforce 

and carry out the federal mandate under the PAIMI Act. 

 

1

 The patients are being referred to as Patients A, B, and C to protect their confidentiality. Patient A’s 

death was reported in a local television news cast but neither patient’s B or C identities are known to the 

general public.

2

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 01/29/09 Page 2 of 8
11. As the state’s protection and advocacy system MPAS is required to and has the 

responsibility to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect of persons with 

disabilities. MCLA 330.1931 (2). 

12. Defendant Detroit Receiving is a Michigan nonprofit corporation which operates a 

hospital located in Detroit, Michigan, which provides medical and health-related 

services to the public. 

13. Defendant DMC is a Michigan nonprofit corporation located in Detroit, Michigan, 

which provides development, planning, support and ancillary activities to a collection 

of medical center institutions which includes but is not limited to Detroit Receiving. 

FACTS 

A. Factual Allegations Relating To Patient A. 

14. On or about April 11, 2008, Patient A was admitted to the Psychiatric Crisis 

Intervention Center of Detroit Receiving. 

15. Upon information and belief Patient A was placed in restraints at some time while at 

Detroit Receiving. 

16. Upon information and belief on or about April 13, 2008, Patient A died while in 

restraints in Psychiatric Crisis Intervention Center at Detroit Receiving. 

17. On or about April 17, 2008, MPAS received a complaint alleging abuse and/or 

neglect in relation to the death of Patient A. 

18. Additionally, MPAS received additional information concerning the death of Patient 

A through a news report on a local Detroit television station. 

3

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 01/29/09 Page 3 of 8
19. MPAS staff determined there was sufficient information in the allegations that 

probable cause existed to open an investigation into whether Patient A had been 

subjected to abuse and/or neglect while at Detroit Receiving. 

20. On October 16, 2008, Cynthia Shadeck, the MPAS advocate conducting the 

investigation, sent a letter to Nancy Moss, Vice President Professional Services at 

Detroit Receiving requesting records relating to the investigation into the alleged 

abuse and/or neglect. 

21. In her letter Ms. Shadeck requested the following records relating to Patient A, “peer 

review documents, correspondence with the Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing 

(BCAL), correspondence with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS), correspondence with the Detroit Police Department and correspondence with 

your accrediting body . . . also . . . any and all video, DVD and audio records . . . ” 

B. Factual Allegations Relating To Patient B. 

22. On or about June 3, 2008, MPAS received a complaint alleging Patient B had been 

subjected to abuse and/or neglect while at Detroit Receiving. 

23. The complaint alleged that on or about February 11, 2008, Patient B suffered a 

broken arm while being placed in physical restraint when she was at Detroit 

Receiving. 

24. The complaint alleged Patient B had sustained a broken arm, specifically two breaks 

in the upper part of the arm, and an injured possibly broken hand while Patient B was 

in the Psychiatric Crisis Intervention Center at Detroit Receiving. 

4

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 01/29/09 Page 4 of 8
25. MPAS staff determined there was sufficient information in the allegations that 

probable cause existed to open an investigation into whether Patient B had been 

subjected to abuse and/or neglect while at Detroit Receiving. 

26. On October 17, 2008, Cynthia Shadeck, the MPAS advocate conducting the 

investigation, sent a letter to Nancy Moss, Vice President Professional Services at 

Detroit Receiving requesting records relating to the investigation into the alleged 

abuse and/or neglect. 

27. In her letter Ms. Shadeck requested the following records relating to Patient B, “peer 

review documents, correspondence with the Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing 

(BCAL), correspondence with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS), correspondence with the Detroit Police Department and correspondence with 

your accrediting body . . . also . . . any and all video, DVD and audio records . . . ” 

C. Factual Allegations Relating To Patient C. 

28. On or about June 13, 2008, MPAS staff received a complaint that Patient C had been 

physically assaulted while at Detroit Receiving. 

29. Upon information and belief MPAS believe Patient C is a person with a mental 

illness, specifically Bi-polar disorder.

30. Upon information and belief the complaint MPAS received alleged that Patient C was 

transported by ambulance from Detroit Receiving to a psychiatric hospital called 

“Circle of Life”. Staff at Circle of Life reported that Patient C arrived at their facility

in bloody clothing, specifically a hospital gown, and suffering from multiple injuries.

31. The incident alleged in complaint occurred on or about January 24, 2008.

5

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 01/29/09 Page 5 of 8
32. MPAS staff determined there was sufficient information in the allegations that 

probable cause existed to open an investigation into whether Patient C had been 

subjected to abuse and/or neglect while at Detroit Receiving.

33. On October 17, 2008, Cynthia Shadeck, the MPAS advocate conducting the 

investigation, sent a letter to Nancy Moss, Vice President Professional Services at 

Detroit Receiving requesting records relating to the investigation into the alleged 

abuse and/or neglect.

34. In her letter Ms. Shadeck requested the following records relating to Patient C, “peer 

review documents, correspondence with the Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing 

(BCAL), correspondence with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS), correspondence with the Detroit Police Department and correspondence with 

your accrediting body . . . also . . . any and all video, DVD and audio records . . . ” 

D. Factual Allegations Relating To Each of the Patients. 

35. On November 3, 2008, Patricia Leonard, Associate General Counsel, for Detroit 

Medical Center, responded by letter to Ms. Shadeck’s letters of October 16-17, 2008. 

36. In her letter, Ms. Leonard, denied the request for peer review materials for each of the 

patients and objected to the requests pursuant to the “Michigan Peer Review 

Immunity Statute, see MCL 331.533, 333.20175, 333.21515.” 

37. Additionally, she denied the requested surveillance tapes due to “multiple issues 

under HIPAA.” 

6

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 01/29/09 Page 6 of 8
38. On December 3, 2008, in a telephone conversation between Ms. Leonard and Chris 

Davis, staff counsel for MPAS, Ms. Leonard repeated DMC’s objection to the release 

of peer review materials and continued to deny the release of these records. 

39. On or about December 16, 2008, DMC allowed Ms. Shadeck to view some of the 

requested surveillance DVD. However, DMC still refuses to provide copies of the 

DVD to MPAS. 

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE PAIMI ACT’S 

ACCESS TO RECORDS PROVISION 

40. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39, as if fully set forth 

herein. 

41. MPAS as Michigan’s designated protection and advocacy system has the right to 

access all record of individuals to which it has permission under the PAIMI Act. 42 

U.S.C. §§ 10805(a)(4), 10806(b)(3)(A,B). 

42. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with the requested records, including peer 

review materials, relating to the allegations of abuse and/or neglect of Patients A - C,

violates MPAS’ rights under the PAIMI Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801-10827. 

43. Defendants’ actions frustrate, impinge and prevent MPAS from meeting its 

responsibilities under federal and state law to investigate allegations of abuse and/or 

neglect of individuals with mental illness. 

44. MPAS has no adequate remedy at law. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: 

A. Enter a declaratory judgment, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring 

that the Defendants’ actions and failures to act violate the PAIMI Act by: 

7

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 01/29/09 Page 7 of 8
i) Denying the Plaintiff access to Patients A - C, records including peer review 

records in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 10805 and 10806: and 

ii) Preventing MPAS from fully performing its statutory duty to investigate 

incidents of suspected abuse and/or neglect of persons with mental illness in violation of 

PAIMI Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 to 10827; 

B. Enter injunctive relief on a preliminary and permanent basis, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2202, requiring Defendants to provide MPAS all reports, documents, and 

records relating to the treatment and care of Patients A – C, including peer review 

records;

C. Retain jurisdiction over this action to ensure Defendants’ compliance with the 

mandates of the PAIMI Act; 

D. Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1988; and 

E. Order such other, further, or different relief as the Court deems equitable and 

just. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: January 29, 2009 s/Chris E. Davis

 MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

 ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 

 Livonia, MI 48152 

 (248) 473-2990 

 cdavis@mpas.org

 P52159 

8

Case 2:09-cv-10331-GER-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 01/29/09 Page 8 of 8