The issue before the State of Michigan Supreme Court in a case decided on July 30, 2024 was whether the wrongful death act (WDA), MCL 600.2922, allows recovery of damages for lost future earnings absent a showing that a beneficiary is entitled to those earnings as financial support, in light of a prior case (Baker v Slack, 319 Mich
703; 30 NW2d 403 (1948)) holding that an earlier version of the statute did not provide such damages. The Michigan Supreme Court held: “We disagree that Baker has been overruled or superseded, and we hold that, like the earlier
version of the WDA, the current version does not allow for recovery of lost future earnings. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ holding on this issue and vacate the remainder of its opinion.”
Background Facts
Plaintiffs brought their medical malpractice action under the WDA, alleging that defendants committed medical malpractice by failing to diagnose and treat bacterial meningitis in their 13-year-old son, Jawad Jumaa, leading to his death. The night before he died, Jawad’s mother, Nawal Daher, took him to the emergency room at defendant
Garden City Hospital, where he was diagnosed with and received care for torticollis before being discharged. The next morning, Jawad was found dead at home. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be acute purulent (i.e., bacterial) meningitis.
Plaintiffs’ complaint sought damages for, among other things, decedent’s lost future earnings. Plaintiffs’ expert estimated that those damages are between $11,000,000 and $19,000,000, depending on the level of education that Jawad would have received. Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that damages for lost future earnings are not permitted under the WDA and that, even if such damages were recoverable, plaintiffs failed to prove any lost future earnings beyond mere speculation. The trial court denied the motion.
In addressing the issue, the Michigan Supreme Court explained, “Given the extensive statutory history of the survival act and the WDA and the caselaw interpreting them, we are not persuaded that, by inserting the word “including” into the statute as part of the 1971 amendments, the Legislature intended to convert what had long been an exhaustive list into an open-ended list of damages types left entirely to the discretion of the jury. To effect such a sea change in the WDA—one that would amount to a further abrogation of the common law (as noted above)—the Legislature must be clear and “speak in no uncertain terms” … The Legislature knows how to speak with clarity when it wants to add a type of damages to the WDA, and it did so in 1971 when it added damages for “loss of . . . society and companionship,” 1971 PA 65, and again in 1985 when it added damages for “the loss of financial support,” 1985 PA 93. The addition of the word “including” is obviously not a similarly clear indication of the Legislature’s intent.”
The Michigan Supreme Court concluded: “We reaffirm Baker’s holding that lost-earning-capacity damages are not available under the WDA. We overrule Denney and Thorn to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.”
Source Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, Docket No. 165377.
If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of medical negligence in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your U.S. state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
