A Michigan appeals court has upheld a nearly $9.7 million judgment against Henry Ford Macomb Hospital in the case of a 41-year-old mother of two who died after developing a severe infection following cosmetic surgery in 2017. In a ruling dated October 23, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the hospital’s challenges to the verdict, finding no errors that warranted overturning the judgment.The case centres on the death of Cathleen Allen, who underwent an abdominoplasty, commonly known as a tummy tuck, on May 26, 2017. According to the court’s opinion, Allen was admitted to Henry Ford Macomb Hospital’s emergency department on June 2 with chills, pain, weakness, fatigue, confusion and an inability to eat. She was treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) for five days before suffering cardiac arrest and being pronounced dead.The lawsuit alleged that delays in treating an infection following the operation contributed to Allen’s death. While the jury found the surgeon professionally negligent, it separately held the hospital administratively negligent for failing to ensure that its patient-safety procedures were properly implemented and enforced.
Disagreement over infection delayed treatment
According to the appellate ruling, doctors suspected that Allen was suffering from septic shock when she arrived at the hospital. Her attending physician in the ICU, Ghada Mesleh, believed the shock was caused by an infection originating in the abdominal wound from her recent surgery. Mesleh consulted Vijay K. Dixit, the plastic surgeon who had performed Allen’s tummy tuck. However, Dixit initially advised doctors to look for another source of infection and did not believe that surgical intervention was necessary at that stage. The disagreement continued over the following days as ICU doctors evaluated possible sources of the infection. The court record states that Dixit eventually operated on Allen on June 6, the day she died.The estate’s case argued that the delay in addressing the suspected abdominal infection prevented timely treatment. Medical experts who testified at trial said that controlling the source of an infection is critical when treating septic shock and that earlier intervention could have changed the outcome.James Attarian, an expert in internal medicine and hospital administration, testified that if doctors had surgically treated the infection during the first few days of Allen’s hospital admission, she would have survived, according to the court opinion. His assessment was part of the evidence presented to the jury rather than a separate finding by the appeals court.
Why the hospital was held administratively negligent
A central issue in the case was whether Henry Ford Macomb Hospital had implemented and enforced its internal “chain of command” policy. Such procedures are designed to help medical staff escalate concerns when disagreements over patient care remain unresolved and could put a patient at risk. The plaintiff argued that the hospital failed to ensure the policy was understood and followed, allowing the disagreement over Allen’s treatment to persist without an effective escalation process.During the trial, the hospital’s former chief of surgery, Harold Gallick, testified that he was initially unfamiliar with the concept of a chain of command in healthcare. He also said he did not believe a written policy specifically covered a situation in which doctors held opposing views that could affect a patient’s treatment.The court record further noted that several witnesses had limited familiarity with the hospital’s policy when they were first questioned. The policy’s delayed disclosure also led to witnesses being deposed a second time.Experts for Allen’s estate argued that a hospital must do more than establish safety procedures on paper: it must make sure staff members know how to use them and that they are enforced when necessary. They said the unresolved disagreement over Allen’s infection was precisely the kind of situation in which escalation should have occurred.The hospital disputed the allegations. Its defence included testimony that staff members could obtain second opinions and had authority to seek additional medical assistance. A defence expert also argued that the hospital had taken reasonable steps to implement its procedures.After an 11-day trial in 2023, the jury found Dixit professionally negligent and Henry Ford Macomb Hospital administratively negligent. It determined that both forms of negligence were proximate causes of Allen’s death. The hospital’s liability was based on its own administrative failures, rather than simply being held responsible for the surgeon’s conduct.
Appeals court rejects hospital’s challenges
The hospital appealed the judgment, contesting aspects of the damages award, the jury instructions and the handling of discovery related to its internal policies. In its October 23 ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the arguments it considered and affirmed the judgment. The court concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that failures involving the hospital’s policies and patient-safety obligations contributed to the delay in Allen’s treatment.The judgment included $4,336,988 for Allen’s future lost earning capacity, alongside other economic and non-economic damages. The hospital argued that the lost-earning-capacity award was not recoverable in the form presented under Michigan’s wrongful-death law. The appeals court, however, found that the estate had also pursued damages for the loss of financial support suffered by Allen’s children and that the record supported the award.The ruling also addressed the hospital’s objections to the jury instructions concerning statutory duties to provide adequate and appropriate care. The court found no basis to reverse the judgment on those grounds. The surgeon and Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Clinic were not parties to this latest appeal. The opinion notes that a satisfaction of judgment had been entered in relation to those defendants.Allen’s death left behind two children, who were 19 and 15 at the time, according to the court record. The estate argued that her death caused not only personal loss but also the loss of financial support she had provided to them.The case highlights the role hospital administration can play in patient safety, particularly when doctors disagree over diagnosis or treatment. The appellate ruling underscores that patient-safety policies must be effective in practice, not merely exist on paper, when delays in care may have serious consequences.
