Court Opinion

ID: 9583366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:37:58.560659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:58.659183
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with Judge Holbrook’s opinion in all respects except one.
I believe that it is misleading to describe "medical decision-making” as "inherently discretionary.” Even though a doctor may sometimes perform discretionary-decisional acts, there are other times when a doctor may act in a ministerial-operational capacity. Moreover, not all decisions which are made by a doctor are part of "medical decision-making.” I believe that is inappropriate to emphasize such terminology instead of looking to the facts of the case in light of the general guidelines of Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).
*265Nevertheless, I believe that the complaint’s allegations of negligence indicate only that the doctor acted in a discretionary-decisional capacity when determining that plaintiffs’ decedent’s condition did not require a one-to-one suicide precaution watch or supervised use of the bathroom.
I concur with Judge Holbrook in all other respects.