MI Court Holds that Medical Professionals May Not Deny Services For Discriminatory Reasons
Michigan physicians may not refuse to enter into a doctor-patient relationship with individuals based on discriminatory reasons, according to a recent opinion by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Importantly, the opinion overrules long-standing Michigan common law, which generally held that a doctor-patient relationship is consensual and a physician cannot be required to render services to anyone.
In Moon v. Michigan Reproductive & IVF Center, et al., (Case No. 299623), plaintiff Allison Moon contacted the defendants, two southwest Michigan fertility centers, and specifically asked if the clinics would provide in vitro fertilization (IVF) services to a single woman. Both clinics responded that they would not. Moon filed suit against both, alleging discrimination based on marital status under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The Elliott-Larsen Act provides generally that: “The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right.” MCL 37.2102(1)(emphasis added).
The circuit court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, reasoning that under Michigan common law: "a physician-patient relationship is voluntary and consensual, and a physician may refuse to enter into such a relationship for any reason or no reason at all. This Court does not believe the ELCRA was intended to function so as to force professionals to enter into relationships with clients. That is likely one reason why MCL 37.2302 begins with the phrase “[e]xcept where permitted by law.”
After the jump - what this case means to medical professionals
On appeal, however, the circuit court reversed, holding that defendants’ clinics were “a place of public accommodation” and that civil rights acts such as Elliott-Larsen should be interpreted to prohibit doctors and medical facilities from refusing to form a doctor-patient relationship based solely on protected status. The court reasoned that “[a] contrary interpretation would allow a doctor to follow his personal prejudices or biases and deny treatment to a patient merely because he is African-American, Jewish, or Italian.”
The court concluded that the plaintiff had shown direct evidence that she was refused service based on marital status, in violation of Elliott-Larsen. Accordingly, the circuit court opinion was reversed.
The Moon opinion makes clear that medical professionals should have policies and handbooks that clearly state that services may not be denied based on a patient’s protected status, such as race, gender, etc. Entities providing medical services should make sure that employees and medical staff members are familiar with Elliot-Larsen and other civil right statutes in order to avoid future lawsuits or problems. For more information, contact Mercedes Varasteh Dordeski at (248) 952-0400.
