Background
Kathleen M. Machelski received Coumadin therapy from Dr. Subbarao Chavali to manage atrial fibrillation. Her estate alleges that an excessive level of the medication caused a subarachnoid hemorrhage or stroke. More than a year later, Machelski fell, suffered a brain bleed, and died. The parties dispute whether complications from the stroke caused the fall.
Machelski’s estate brought a wrongful-death action alleging medical negligence. It sought damages for the loss of household and caretaking services Machelski had provided to her husband. Relying on the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, the trial court granted Dr. Chavali partial summary disposition and dismissed claims for loss of earning capacity and household services. The Court of Appeals granted leave limited to whether Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act permits recovery for the value of services the decedent would have performed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that loss-of-services damages remain recoverable under the Wrongful Death Act. The court explained that such damages are distinct from the lost-future-earnings damages disallowed in Daher. Daher did not decide whether damages for a decedent’s services are available.
Following its decision in Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc., the court concluded that the trial court erred by treating Daher as barring recovery for Machelski’s household and caretaking services. It remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether the estate may recover Social Security benefits, because the trial court had not ruled on that issue.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act permits a claim for the loss of household or caretaking services a decedent would have provided.
- Loss-of-services damages are legally distinct from lost future earnings, which Daher held are unavailable under the act.
- The ruling allows the estate to pursue loss-of-services damages but does not determine whether the evidence ultimately proves those damages.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the reach of Daher and confirms, under existing Court of Appeals precedent, that wrongful-death plaintiffs may seek the value of a decedent’s household and caretaking contributions. That distinction can be significant when a decedent provided valuable unpaid services rather than conventional wage income.
The issue remains unsettled at the state’s highest court because the Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in Demott to consider whether, and under what conditions, the Wrongful Death Act permits loss-of-household-services damages.