Court Opinion

ID: 9676322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:21:54.852899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.617986
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
This Court held in Hyde v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223; 393 NW2d 847 (1986), that the diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients at a public general hospital or medical facility, when expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by the constitution, statute, or other law, is a governmental function and that to the extent Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183, 273 *201NW2d 413 (1978),1 had ruled such activity does not constitute a governmental function, it was impliedly overruled by Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).2
The Court in Hyde then declared that the new rule of Ross would apply to all cases commenced after January 22, 1985, when Ross was decided, and to those cases then pending either in trial or appellate courts in which a governmental immunity issue "was properly raised and preserved.”3
Hyde thus stated a rule of "limited” retroactivity. The new rule would apply only in cases commenced after the overruling decision and in pending cases where the issue had been raised and preserved.
The cases consolidated in this appeal were filed during the interim between decisions in Parker and Ross and were disposed of at the trial level prior to our decision in Hyde. The procedural histories involved are best understood through the following sequence:
A. Stein
December 27,1978 Parker decided.
February 21, 1984 Plaintiffs Stein filed a complaint against defendants Southeastern Michigan _Family Planning Project, *202P. Eastin, and Wayne County General Hospital alleging medical malpractice.
January 22, 1985 Ross released.
July 1,1985 Defendant Wayne County General Hospital moved for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.
November 8, 1985 Defendant hospital was granted summary disposition.
October 3, 1986 Hyde decided.
February 6, 1987 The Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting summary disposition. 158 Mich App 702; 405 NW2d 147 (1987).
B. Rifkin
December 27, 1978 Parker decided.
August 20,1981 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant University of Michigan Hospital, alleging medical malpractice.
January 22, 1985 Ross released.
April 11, 1985 Defendant moved for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.
August 7, 1985 Defendant was granted summary disposition.
October 3, 1986 Hyde decided.
*203December 30, 1986 The Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary disposition and remanded the case for further proceedings. 159 Mich App 254; 406 NW2d 202 (1986).
The question presented in these cases is whether a hospital owned by a governmental entity that had not challenged the correctness of this Court’s decision in Parker or raised a defense of governmental immunity before Ross was decided and, after Ross was decided, for the first time filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis of Ross, raised and preserved a challenge to Parker.
We answer the question directly. A hospital owned by a governmental entity that did nothing to raise a challenge to Parker or assert a defense of governmental immunity before Ross was decided had not raised and preserved the issue.
The overruling of Parker created a window of immunity for causes of action that accrued before July 1, 1986, the effective date of 1986 PA 175.
Act 175, providing that the governmental tort liability act "does not grant immunity to a governmental agency with respect to the ownership or operation of a hospital,” MCL 691.1407(4); MSA 3.996(107)(4), adopted the concept expressed in Parker that a governmental agency operating a general hospital was subject to tort liability.
This Court, in providing in Hyde that the overruling of Parker would be accorded limited retro-activity, limited the window of immunity. Our clarification of this today accords with the clearly expressed intent of the Legislature.
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in Stein and affirm the decision in Rifkin.
Riley, C.J., and Levin, Brickley, Cavanagh, Boyle, and Archer, JJ., concurred.

 This Court declared in Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), that the operation of a generad hospital was not a governmental function within the meaning of the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), and thus that the City of Highland Park was subject to tort liability for medical malpractice in the emergency room of Highland Park General Hospital.

 In Ross, this Court "redefined the term 'governmental function,’ ” but "[n]one of the nine consolidated cases decided in Ross involved the tort liability of a public general hospital . . . .” Hyde, supra, pp 229-230.

 Hyde, supra, p 230.