Background
Kathleen M. Machelski received Coumadin therapy from Dr. Subbarao Chavali to manage atrial fibrillation. Her estate alleged that an excessively high Coumadin level caused a subarachnoid hemorrhage or stroke. More than a year later, Machelski fell, suffered a brain bleed, and died. The parties disputed whether complications from the stroke caused the fall.
Machelski’s estate brought a wrongful-death medical-malpractice action and sought damages for household and caretaking services that she had provided to her husband. The Bay Circuit Court granted Dr. Chavali partial summary disposition, concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC limited recovery under MCL 600.2922(6) to specifically listed damages and therefore barred damages for household services and loss of earning capacity. The Court of Appeals granted leave limited to whether the statute permits recovery for services the decedent would have performed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed in part. Relying on Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc., the court held that loss-of-services damages remain recoverable under Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act. It explained that such damages are distinct from lost-future-earnings damages, which Daher held were unavailable under the statute.
Because Daher did not address loss-of-services damages, the trial court erred by treating it as barring recovery for Machelski’s household and caretaking services. The court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether the estate could recover lost 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 value of household and caretaking services the decedent would have provided.
- Loss-of-services damages are legally distinct from lost-future-earnings damages barred by Daher.
- The court declined to address Social Security benefits because the trial court had made no ruling on them.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Daher does not categorically restrict wrongful-death recovery to the damages expressly enumerated in MCL 600.2922(6). Estates may continue to seek compensation for household and caretaking services, although they must still establish entitlement to and the value of those damages.
The ruling follows Demott while acknowledging that the Michigan Supreme Court had granted leave to review whether and under what conditions loss-of-services damages are available under the Wrongful Death Act.