Background
Kathleen M. Machelski was prescribed Coumadin by 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 medical-malpractice action and sought damages for the loss of household and caretaking services she 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 partial summary disposition to Chavali 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 services the decedent would have performed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling insofar as it barred damages for Machelski’s lost services. It held that loss-of-services damages are distinct from lost-future-earnings damages and remain recoverable under the Wrongful Death Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in Daher barred recovery of lost future earnings under the statute but did not address or eliminate loss-of-services damages.
Following its decision in Demott v. VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc., the court concluded that the trial court had read Daher too broadly. It remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether the estate may 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 a decedent’s household or caretaking services.
- Daher’s prohibition on lost-future-earnings damages does not extend to the analytically distinct category of loss-of-services damages.
- The court expressed no view on lost Social Security benefits because that issue had not been decided below.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision reinforces that Daher did not foreclose every category of wrongful-death damages not expressly enumerated in MCL 600.2922(6). Estates may continue to seek compensation for household and caretaking services a decedent would have provided, subject to proving the claim on remand.
The issue remains unsettled at the state’s highest court because the Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave in Demott to consider whether the Wrongful Death Act permits household-services damages and what proof such claims require.