Brown v. Laitner, 80118

• Decision Date: 10 February 1989
• Docket Number: No. 80118,80118
• Citation: 432 Mich. 861,435 N.W.2d 1
• Parties: The Rev. Ralph BROWN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Matthew Swan, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne LAITNER, June Ahearn, and the First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts (The Mother Church), a foreign corporation, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 1

435 N.W.2d 1

432 Mich. 861

The Rev. Ralph BROWN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Matthew Swan, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne LAITNER, June Ahearn, and the First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts (The Mother Church), a foreign corporation, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80118.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 10, 1989.

ORDER

On order of the Court, plaintiff-appellant's motion to present supplemental authority is considered, and it is GRANTED. Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the order of March 7, 1988, 430 Mich. 855, 419 N.W.2d 743 which granted leave to appeal is VACATED and leave to appeal is DENIED because the Court is no longer persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

ARCHER, J., not participating.

LEVIN, Justice dissenting:

This Court granted leave to appeal limited to whether the religious exemption to the medical malpractice act ¹ applies to plaintiff's allegation that the defendants engaged in diagnosis and whether those allegations support a cause of action inferred from violation of an act barring the unauthorized practice of medicine. ²

The defendants in this Court argued that the issues on which this Court granted leave to appeal had not been briefed in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however, introduced the applicability of the statutory exemption, stating that it indicates that the Legislature declared a public policy in favor of the "untrammeled exercise of good-faith spiritual healing practices."

Extensive briefs were filed in this matter of public importance after this Court granted leave to appeal. The Court heard oral arguments.

The Court of Appeals stated that the plaintiff acknowledged that he could not prove that the defendants did not sincerely hold their religious beliefs, that plaintiff further acknowledged that a cause of action which necessitates competing testimony concerning church doctrine cannot be the basis of imposing civil liability, and that the defendant would be submitting evidence of church doctrine.

The plaintiff did not, however, acknowledge that it would be necessary, in order to establish his cause of action, for the court to make a determination regarding church doctrine. Simply because the defendant submits evidence on church doctrine does not establish that the plaintiff cannot maintain his cause of action without involving the court in a determination of church doctrine. And simply because the defendants sincerely hold their religious beliefs does not necessarily insulate them from civil liability for harm caused by their statements and conduct.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals recognized that although the plaintiff made the concessions referred to, plaintiff did not concede judgment for the defendants. As stated by the Court of Appeals: "Plaintiff asserted that a jury could determine that defendants had violated society's standard without regard to defendants' religious beliefs." Also: "Plaintiff posits that the proper question on appeal is whether permissible belief or impermissible conduct caused Matthew's death."

The question whether the public policy of this state, as evidenced in the statutes adverted to in this Court's order granting leave to appeal, bars the maintenance of plaintiff's cause of action is a question of law which, now that it has been raised by the Court of Appeals and this Court granted leave thereon, should be addressed by this Court.

The ultimate question is whether the conduct of the defendants in assessing the nature of the child's illness in combination with discouraging the parents from seeking medical assistance subjects them, as the practitioners or the church that sponsored their activities, to civil liability to the child's estate for resulting damage as a matter of common law or in implementation of statutory mandate. If not, this Court should so declare. It would then be for the Legislature to consider whether remedial legislation is called for.

The cause should be remanded to the trial court with leave to plaintiff to amend his complaint and file a claim based on the statutes. The inquiry would be whether defendants engaged in diagnosis, an activity reserved to licensed physicians, or whether they engaged in spiritual healing alone, an activity exempted from the licensing requirements.

I

Matthew Swan's parents, Douglas and Rita Swan, were life-long adherents of Christian Science. Rita Swan was a college instructor with a Ph.D. in English. When she was pregnant with Matthew, her obstetrician suspected that she had an ovarian cyst and scheduled an ultrasound diagnosis. Rita Swan contacted defendant Jeanne Laitner, a Christian Science practitioner, who agreed to provide Christian Science treatment. The ultrasound diagnosis revealed no abnormality, and Rita Swan believed she had been healed. However, six months later the cyst twisted, and, in great pain, Rita Swan sought emergency medical treatment, which resulted in surgery. Laitner did not condemn her for turning to "materia medica" (the Christian Science term for medicine), but church regulations required her temporarily to discontinue teaching Sunday school.

In June, 1977, at the age of fifteen months, Matthew Swan became fatally ill. Prior to that time, Matthew had fevers three times, in November, 1976, April, 1977, and May, 1977. The Swans consulted practitioners Jeanne Laitner, June Ahearn, and Laura Metzger regarding the fevers. Each fever abated.

On Friday, June 17, 1977, the Swans communicated with Laitner because of concern over Matthew's knee. According to Laitner, they reported Matthew's listlessness and poor appetite. On Saturday, June 18, the Swans were alarmed because Matthew had a raging fever. They telephoned Laitner several times on Saturday and over the weekend. According to Rita Swan, Laitner said: "Do you think Matthew could just be cutting a big double tooth?", and "What could medicine do for Matthew? I suppose that they would give him a baby aspirin, but you can see that would not get to the real cause of the problem." Laitner denies she suggested that Matthew could be cutting a tooth, but Rita Swan states that Laitner repeated that statement to Douglas Swan Sunday morning. On Sunday evening, Laitner told the Swans not to notice whether Matthew's fever went up or down.

On Monday, June 20, Laitner made a house call. The Swans were apprehensive. Matthew had not smiled, sat, or stood since Saturday and was limp and unresponsive. Laitner observed that Matthew was quiet and listless. Rita Swan said that Laitner administered a Christian Scientist treatment stating "God is your life, Matthew, and God is your truth," and proclaiming Matthew's identification with the seven synonyms for God. Rita Swan also testified that Laitner said, "We're not just pouring out hecatombs of gushing theories, this is a Christian Science treatment which must have its effect."

Rita Swan reported to Laitner that afternoon that Matthew tried to look at and point to a light in the bedroom and that is was an improvement, though she still believed Matthew's situation to be very serious. In a later conversation, she asked Laitner to make another house call. At the house, the Swans testified that Laitner told them that she had "learned a lot about disease in this business, you just naturally would, and I know that the Christian Scientists are nearly always wrong. They always or often exaggerate things, they always imagine the worst thing. It's a fascination with fear."

Laitner made another house call on Tuesday morning, June 21. Rita Swan testified that Matthew was limp, listless, and unable to move his arms or legs or hold his head up. He still had a fever, though it was not as violent as the raging fever of Saturday and Sunday. Rita Swan pointed out a small fever blister on Matthew's upper lip. Laitner administered a treatment similar to that of Monday morning. That afternoon, Rita Swan spoke to Laitner and said she noticed a little blood in Matthew's mouth. Rita Swan said that Laitner responded, " [W]ell, in the first place you could be wrong and in the second place, if you are relying radically on God, it doesn't make any difference what the evidence is." Laitner also stated that she was "trying to know that Matthew does not have a disease called roseola."

During the day, Douglas Swan suggested to Rita Swan that if Matthew was not healed within a couple of days they would have to go to a physician. Douglas Swan also telephoned Laitner, and she told him that practitioners were asked to report to the Committee on Publications when a child was not improving. Laitner stated that in all her years of practice she had to do so only one other time and the case turned out well. She was considering reporting Matthew's case.

On Tuesday evening, Laitner made another house call. She stated that she was "very encouraged" and "Let's not say he is not making progress. He is making progress."

On Wednesday morning, Rita Swan called to say that Matthew's condition was still discouraging. Made uncomfortable by Laitner's unresponsiveness, Rita Swan said, "Well, he did seem a little better last night." Mrs. Swan stated that Laitner said that "it would have been nice if you had put the good news first, I find that people who do...." Laitner also told her that on the basis of her visit Tuesday night, she did not think Matthew was as hot as his mother claimed or that the fever blister on Matthew's lip was anything to worry about. Laitner cautioned her not to let her imagination run away with her. Later that day, Matthew fell out of bed, but did not seem to be harmed by the fall.

On Thursday, June 23, 1977, Matthew for the first time absolutely refused to eat. The Swans discussed changing practitioners and turning to medicine. Douglas Swan called Laitner to dismiss her, and Rita Swan then called a second practitioner, d...