Randall v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n
| Citation | 334 Mich.App. 697,965 N.W.2d 690 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 346476,No. 346135,346135 |
| Parties | Samuel J. RANDALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Grand Rapids Christian High School, Grand Rapids Christian Schools, St. Francis High School, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools, Bay Hockey Association, Ryan Fedorinchik, Defendants, and Anthony Polazzo and Metropolitan Health Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. Samuel J. Randall, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, Anthony Polazzo, Metropolitan Health Corporation, Defendants, and Grand Rapids Christian High School, Grand Rapids Christian Schools, St. Francis High School, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools, Bay Hockey Association, Ryan Fedorinchik, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Law Office of Raoul Graham, PLC (by Raoul V. Graham, Okemos).
Bodman PLC, Troy (by Thomas Van Dusen and Donovan S. Asmar ) for St. Francis High School, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools, Bay Hockey Association, and Ryan Fedorinchik.
Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, Grand Rapids (by Jon D. Vander Ploeg and John C. O'Louglin) for Anthony Polazzo and Metropolitan Health Corporation.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Fort Hood and Swartzle, JJ.
Swartzle, J. Youth sports offer extensive benefits to kids—comradery, discipline, exercise, and self-esteem, just to name a few. There can be a dark side to youth sports, however, and one of the darkest is the possibility of short- and long-term injury and harm from concussions. In 2012, our Legislature enacted the "concussion-protection statute," 2012 PA 342, to help protect our youth from this specific risk of harm. The statute imposes various duties on coaches and other covered adults, including training about concussions and the requirement to remove a youth from an athletic activity who is suspected of suffering a concussion.
Plaintiff sued his coach, trainer, and various institutional entities, alleging that they failed to remove him from a youth hockey game after he showed obvious signs of a concussion. Defendants have denied breaching any duty. On appeal, we clarify the legal duties imposed by the Legislature on coaches and other covered adults and entities with respect to a youth who is suspected of suffering a concussion during an athletic activity, and we affirm in part and vacate in part the trial court's rulings on summary disposition and remand both appeals to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiff, Samuel Randall, sued defendants, the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA), Grand Rapids Christian High School, Grand Rapids Christian Schools, St. Francis High School, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools, Anthony Polazzo, Metropolitan Health Corporation, Ryan Fedorinchik, and the Bay Hockey Association, over a concussion that he allegedly suffered while participating as a youth athlete in a hockey game. The orders on appeal do not concern his claims against the MHSAA, Grand Rapids Christian High School, or Grand Rapids Christian Schools, and those parties are not involved in these appeals. For clarity, this opinion will refer to St. Francis High School, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools, Bay Hockey Association, and Fedorinchik collectively as the "Association defendants."
A brief preliminary note about the appellate record. In support of and opposition to the motions for summary disposition, the parties relied on plaintiff's deposition testimony, the medical records completed by the athletic trainer, and video evidence. Plaintiff's briefs on appeal, however, are not restricted to this evidence, and they instead cite extensively from depositions of witnesses taken after the motions were decided. We decline to consider this evidence, as it was not presented to the trial court with respect to the rulings now on appeal. See Peña v. Ingham Co. Rd. Comm. , 255 Mich. App. 299, 310, 660 N.W.2d 351 (2003). With that said and as explained below, this additional evidence might be relevant to future proceedings in this case.
Plaintiff played goalie for a youth hockey team run by St. Francis High School and the Bay Hockey Association. The events at issue in this lawsuit occurred during a hockey game between plaintiff's team and a team operated by the Grand Rapids Christian Schools. Polazzo, an employee of Metro Health, served as athletic trainer for both hockey teams during the game.
Plaintiff was involved in two separate collisions during the game. Plaintiff testified that, during the second period, a player from the opposing team struck him in the head with an elbow. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of this blow to the head, he lost consciousness and fell to the ice. Plaintiff obtained a video of this first collision and posted it on social media. The video was approximately 30 seconds long, and while it showed the collision, it ended as soon as plaintiff was hit and therefore did not confirm that he lost consciousness on the ice. Plaintiff testified that he did not remember falling after the first collision, but when he regained consciousness, he found himself lying on the ice.
The length of time plaintiff was lying on the ice—if at all—is highly contested. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he "remained on the ice—unresponsive—for approximately four minutes." During his deposition, however, plaintiff denied any personal knowledge regarding how long he was unconscious. Instead, plaintiff stated that two spectators watching the game from the stands—specifically, Jonathan Ellis and Mark Stevenson—told him that he was unconscious for four minutes. Plaintiff agreed during his deposition that any person watching the game, including the spectators in the stands (which included his parents), would have been able to see how long he was on the ice after the first hit. Yet plaintiff has not alleged in his pleadings, briefs, or deposition testimony that his parents saw the first hit or saw him on the ice for approximately four minutes.
After the first collision, Polazzo went on the ice to check on plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Polazzo did not perform any test to ascertain his medical condition or, specifically, whether plaintiff exhibited any symptoms of a concussion. During his deposition, however, plaintiff admitted that Polazzo assessed him to determine whether plaintiff could continue to play.
Plaintiff testified that he felt dizzy after the first collision. He admitted, however, that he wanted to remain in the game and that he told Polazzo, "I think I'm good." He did not recall experiencing any sensitivity to light at that time, and he stated that he would not have stayed in the game if he had experienced such sensitivity, given the brightness of the lights and reflectivity of the ice. He remembered that Polazzo told him that if he started to get a headache or feel dizzy, or if he felt like he could not continue play, he should alert Polazzo immediately.
Polazzo later completed a three-page form that documented his visit to plaintiff on the ice. One page, labeled "Cognitive & Physical Evaluation," included an area for documenting the evaluation of an athlete's symptoms, as well as an area for documenting an athlete's cognitive and physical condition. According to the form, plaintiff reported a mild headache to Polazzo, but this subsided as the evaluation progressed. Plaintiff also purportedly reported experiencing mild dizziness when his head hit the ice, but denied any dizziness during the on-ice evaluation. Plaintiff purportedly denied other symptoms of a concussion, including pressure in the head, neck pain, nausea or vomiting, blurred vision, balance problems, or sensitivity to light or noise. Polazzo recorded on the cognitive-assessment
portion of the form that plaintiff "knew where he was [and] what happened" and that he was "[a]ble to comprehend" and "was not delayed in answering" Polazzo's questions.
Another page of the form, labeled "Sports Medicine Athletic Injury Evaluation," contained Polazzo's narrative description of plaintiff's injury: Regarding his evaluation of the injury, Polazzo wrote:
Eval revealed pain where athlete's head made contact with ice, in helmet. He said he had a headache after hitting the ice, but it started to go away while talking to him. He denied any dizziness, feeling in a fog, not feeling right, or troubles with light sensitivity. He was asked if he thinks he can continue and he said he could. He was told if he starts to get a headache, feel dizzy, feel like he can't think straight to tell the ref or motion to athletic trainer immediately.
It is uncontested that, after he visited plaintiff on the ice, Polazzo returned to the bench, plaintiff remained in net, and the game resumed.
Plaintiff testified that, at some later point, he tried to signal Polazzo that he wanted to come out. "I just remember looking at him and like shaking my head because I was dizzy, like losing balance," plaintiff testified. He did not come off the ice on his own, however, because he thought Polazzo was going to stop play. The opposing team scored a goal, play stopped, and yet plaintiff remained on the ice.
Shortly after the goal (and about five or six minutes after the first hit), plaintiff took a knee to the head. He alleged in his complaint that he remained conscious, but he removed himself from the game because his head hurt, and he had vision problems. During his deposition, however, plaintiff testified that it was his father who "pulled me off the ice" when he "opened the door during the whistle and yelled and told me" to come off the ice.
Polazzo's evaluation form confirmed that plaintiff signaled that he wanted to come off the ice and that plaintiff was involved in a second collision. Polazzo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercurio v. Huntington Nat'l Bank
...the statute? If the answers to both are yes, then a legal duty arises from the statutory enactment. [Citations omitted.] Plaintiff relies on Randall in arguing that 13 CFR created a duty that required LeFevre to honestly disclose to plaintiff before she executed the guaranty that the compan......
-
Dobronski v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.
...(2020). This is especially the case when, as here, the legislative body "has provided other means for enforcing a statute's provisions." Id. at 718. courts have not yet addressed this question in a published decision, though courts outside this jurisdiction have. Most courts have concluded ......
-
Estate of Swanzy by Swanzy v. Kryshak
...or entity is capable of malpractice "is a necessary condition for bringing a malpractice suit." Randall v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n , 334 Mich. App. 697, 722, 965 N.W.2d 690 (2020) ; see also Bryant , 471 Mich. at 420, 684 N.W.2d 864 ("The first issue in any purported medical malpract......
-
Kilpatrick v. Lansing Cmty. Coll.
... ... National-Standard, LLC , 329 Mich.App. 615, 619-620; 944 ... N.W.2d 148 ... rights. Bay City Sch Dist v Bay City Ed Ass'n, ... Inc , 425 ... government sees fit to do so. Randall v Mich. High Sch ... Athletic Ass'n , 334 ... ...