Daniel J. Williams, Esq.<\/p>\n
In August of 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals<\/a> found that the governmental immunity protections provided in M.C.L. \u00a7691.1407(1) did not apply to state-run veterans homes, where the underlying claim was sounded from the medical care or medical treatment of the moving party Estate of Andrew Ball v. Grand Rapids Home for Veterans<\/em>, ___ Mich. App. ___; ___ N.W.2d ___; 2014 Mich. App. Lexis 1580; COA # 314861 (August 26, 2014).<\/p>\n The Court found that M.C.L. \u00a7691.1407(4), the medical care and treatment exception to the governmental immunity provided by the statute, was not implicated in Ball<\/em> because the allegations arose as a result of a condition that directly resulted for the complainant\u2019s medical condition.\u00a0 The condition was his reason for treatment at the facility, and as a result, the Court found a sufficient nexus was created to allow the suit to go forward under the M.C.L. \u00a71407(4) exception to (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Daniel J. Williams, Esq. In August of 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the governmental immunity protections provided in M.C.L. \u00a7691.1407(1) did not apply to state-run veterans homes, where the underlying claim was sounded from the medical care…<\/span><\/p>\n