Estate of Ryan Harsh v. McLaren Port Huron Hospital
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
46%
Case Summary
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARSHA HARSH, Personal Representative of the UNPUBLISHED ESTATE OF RYAN HARSH, June 20, 2025 1:44 PM Plaintiff-Appellant, v Nos. 366392; 367927 St. Clair Circuit Court MCLAREN PORT HURON HOSPITAL, LC No. 19-001139-NH ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D., and ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. PC, Defendants-Appellees, and FREDERICK WILLIAM COOP, M.D. and X-RAY ASSOCIATES OF PORT HURON PC, Defendants. MARSHA HARSH, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RYAN HARSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 366953 St. Clair Circuit Court MCLAREN PORT HURON HOSPITAL, LC No. 19-001139-NH FREDERICK WILLIAM COOP, M.D., and X-RAY ASSOCIATES OF PORT HURON, PC, Defendants, and -1- ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. and ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. PC, Defendants-Appellees. Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals by leave granted and as of right the trial court’s orders granting summary disposition to defendants McLaren Port Huron Hospital (McLaren), Arundhuti Banerjee, M.D. and Arundhuti Banerjee, M.D., P.C.1 The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims on the ground that she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Banerjee’s alleged negligence proximately caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent, Ryan Harsh. After careful review of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND In May 2014, Harsh, a 36-year old autistic individual, lived with his mother, plaintiff. On the morning of May 25, 2024, Ryan experienced “seizure” activity and fell in his home. Plaintiff called 911 at 7:53 a.m., and emergency medical services (EMS) transported Ryan to McLaren where he arrived at 8:29 a.m. EMS technicians noted that Ryan was alert but combative. At McLaren, Christopher Hunt, M.D., a specialist in emergency medicine, evaluated Ryan and found him to have an “altered mental status.” Dr. Hunt ordered a computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain without contrast. At 10:34 a.m., defendant Frederick William Coop, M.D., a radiologist, interpreted the CT scan ordered by Dr. Hunt. Dr. Coop included the following observations in his report: FINDINGS: The study is compromised by motion artifact in spite of multiple attempts to obtain non-motion images. Central structures are midline. There is no evidence of hydrocephalus. There is an area of decreased attenuation in the posterior left parietal region. This is not well visualized. There is no evidence of mass effect or midline shift. I do not see evidence of intracranial blood. Notably, as part of his “Impressions,” Dr. Coop recommended that a repeat CT scan be performed with Ryan sedated. Dr. Hunt treated Ryan in the emergency department until approximately noon 1 This Court consolidated this appeal by right with two previous appeals by leave granted. Estate of Ryan Harsh v McLaren Port Huron Hosp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 16, 2024 (Docket Nos. 366392, 366953, and 367927). -2- on May 25, 2014. Regarding the CT scan, Dr. Hunt noted: “CT shows some attenuation in the parietal region on the right but could be motion artifact.” Ryan was transferred from the emergency department and admitted into the medical floor under the care of Dr. Banerjee, an internal medicine physician. Dr. Banerjee requested a neurology consultation which neurologist Marwan Shuayto, M.D., received at 12:43 p.m. Dr. Shuayto evaluated Ryan sometime before 2:36 p.m. According to Dr. Shuayto’s progress notes, he ordered a repeat CT scan, however, it is unclear from the record when the order was made. But it is clear that sometime on May 26, 2014, attempts were made to repeat the scan, but a scan was not done because “the patient was very restless.” Then on either the late afternoon or early evening of May 26, 2014, Ryan was found unresponsive. A “code”
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARSHA HARSH, Personal Representative of the UNPUBLISHED ESTATE OF RYAN HARSH, June 20, 2025 1:44 PM Plaintiff-Appellant,
v Nos. 366392; 367927 St. Clair Circuit Court MCLAREN PORT HURON HOSPITAL, LC No. 19-001139-NH ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D., and ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. PC,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
FREDERICK WILLIAM COOP, M.D. and X-RAY ASSOCIATES OF PORT HURON PC,
Defendants.
MARSHA HARSH, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RYAN HARSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 366953 St. Clair Circuit Court MCLAREN PORT HURON HOSPITAL, LC No. 19-001139-NH FREDERICK WILLIAM COOP, M.D., and X-RAY ASSOCIATES OF PORT HURON, PC,
Defendants,
and
-1-
ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. and ARUNDHUTI BANERJEE, M.D. PC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals by leave granted and as of right the
trial court’s orders granting summary disposition to defendants McLaren Port Huron Hospital (McLaren), Arundhuti Banerjee, M.D. and Arundhuti Banerjee, M.D., P.C.1 The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims on the ground that she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Banerjee’s alleged negligence proximately caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent, Ryan Harsh. After careful review of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
In May 2014, Harsh, a 36-year old autistic individual, lived with his mother, plaintiff. On
the morning of May 25, 2024, Ryan experienced “seizure” activity and fell in his home. Plaintiff called 911 at 7:53 a.m., and emergency medical services (EMS) transported Ryan to McLaren where he arrived at 8:29 a.m. EMS technicians noted that Ryan was alert but combative. At McLaren, Christopher Hunt, M.D., a specialist in emergency medicine, evaluated Ryan and found him to have an “altered mental status.” Dr. Hunt ordered a computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain without contrast. At 10:34 a.m., defendant Frederick William Coop, M.D., a radiologist, interpreted the CT scan ordered by Dr. Hunt. Dr. Coop included the following observations in his report:
FINDINGS: The study is compromised by motion artifact in spite of
multiple attempts to obtain non-motion images.
Central structures are midline. There is no evidence of hydrocephalus.
There is an area of decreased attenuation in the posterior left parietal region. This
is not well visualized. There is no evidence of mass effect or midline shift. I do
not see evidence of intracranial blood.
Notably, as part of his “Impressions,” Dr. Coop recommended that a repeat CT scan be performed with Ryan sedated. Dr. Hunt treated Ryan in the emergency department until approximately noon
1 This Court consolidated this appeal by right with two previous appeals by leave granted. Estate of Ryan Harsh v McLaren Port Huron Hosp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 16, 2024 (Docket Nos. 366392, 366953, and 367927).
-2-
on May 25, 2014. Regarding the CT scan, Dr. Hunt noted: “CT shows some attenuation in the parietal region on the right but could be motion artifact.”
Ryan was transferred from the emergency department and admitted into the medical floor
under the care of Dr. Banerjee, an internal medicine physician. Dr. Banerjee requested a neurology consultation which neurologist Marwan Shuayto, M.D., received at 12:43 p.m. Dr. Shuayto evaluated Ryan sometime before 2:36 p.m. According to Dr. Shuayto’s progress notes, he ordered a repeat CT scan, however, it is unclear from the record when the order was made. But it is clear that sometime on May 26, 2014, attempts were made to repeat the scan, but a scan was not done because “the patient was very restless.” Then on either the late afternoon or early evening of May 26, 2014, Ryan was found unresponsive. A “code”
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools