News & Media
Tort Tutorial Part Four
Court Cases
Michigan Supreme Court Rulings Offer Relief and Raise Concerns for Physicians
Although legislative action over the past forty years has shaped Michigan current liability environment, one cannot ignore the influence of Michigan’s judicial branch in determining how the laws are applied. Recent decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court highlight their impact.
Clarifying Future Earnings Awards
Michigan physicians and healthcare providers recently secured a major legal victory thanks to a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court ruling on July 30, 2024, that directly impacts the state's medical liability landscape. The ruling, which prohibits the inclusion of lost future earnings in damages awarded under Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act, is expected to help curb rising medical liability costs, which have been a growing concern for physicians and healthcare systems alike.
In Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, the Court struck down the precedent set by a 2016 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Denney v. Kent County Road Commission. The Denney ruling had expanded recoverable damages in wrongful death cases to include speculative calculations of a decedent’s lost future earnings, a move that had significantly increased liability awards in malpractice suits. These so-called "Denney Damages" were no longer subject to the loss of “financial support” standard, adding millions to settlements and driving up healthcare costs.
The unanimous ruling in Daher clarifies that Michigan's current statute does not allow for ”loss of earning capacity” damages, only “loss of financial support.” . Physicians and healthcare providers, including those represented by the Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA), the Michigan State Medical Society, the Michigan Osteopathic Association, and the American Medical Association, welcomed the decision as a long-overdue correction.
Changes in Expert Witness Requirements
Another recent Michigan Supreme Court decision affects the expert testimony requirements in medical malpractice cases, which could have broader implications for future litigation. In a 4-3 ruling, the Court overturned part of the 2006 Woodard v. Custer decision, allowing for greater flexibility in who can testify as an expert witness in medical malpractice cases.
The ruling distinguishes between "specialties" and "subspecialties" when it comes to expert qualifications. Under the new decision, expert witnesses are only required to have the same medical specialty as the defendant, not the same subspecialty. For example, in Stokes v. Swofford, a diagnostic radiologist is now permitted to testify about a brain shunt procedure, despite not being a subspecialist in that area. Similarly, in Selliman v. Colton, an expert in rhinoplasty can testify, even though they may not spend much time on cosmetic procedures.
While this expansion makes it easier for plaintiffs to find expert witnesses, it may also lead to a rise in malpractice claims, adding to the pressures already faced by healthcare providers.
Looking Ahead
The Daher ruling provides important relief for physicians by limiting damages in wrongful death cases, but the possibility of legislative action to reverse this decision and/or roll back other tort reforms of the 1990s during the upcoming lame-duck session remains a real concern. Meanwhile, the expanded criteria for expert witnesses could complicate malpractice cases moving forward. The healthcare community will need to remain vigilant in monitoring these developments as they unfold.
Physicians should be prepared for prepared for the legislation to be introduced that would negate existing provisions in Michigan law (see previous articles in this series) that help to maintain the stability of Michigan’s current liability climate, prevent runaway liability costs, and enable physicians to deliver high-quality care without fear of excessive litigation. Ongoing political dynamics and rumored legislative efforts could alter this balance, making physician engagement and advocacy more important than ever.