 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Betty Jean Shinholster v. Annapolis Hospital7/30/2004
It is important to remember that the conduct of plaintiff, not that of defendants, is at issue here, and that the issue is whether defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that, although liable, they are not exclusively liable for plaintiff's injury. That is, we are not considering whether plaintiff satisfied her initial burden of proof relating to whether defendants were a proximate cause of her injury and, thus, are liable.
Certainly, defendants could have argued that, had the jury been permitted to consider plaintiff's pre-treatment negligence, it would not have found that defendants had breached their standard of care at all or that defendants' breach constituted a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. However, defendants did not make such an argument. Instead, they argued only that evidence of plaintiff's own negligence should be considered by the jury in order to determine the extent to which defendants were liable for plaintiff's injury. (Defendants alleged: "Had the jury been properly instructed [concerning plaintiff's pre-treatment negligence], it is likely that the percentage of her comparative fault would have been determined at a much higher level").
B. Cap on Non-economic Damages
For the reasons stated in Jenkins, supra at ___, we hold that the non-economic damages cap found in MCL 600.1483 applies to a wrongful death action based on an underlying claim of medical malpractice.
MCL 600.1483 contains two caps on non-economic damages and provides:
(1) In an action for damages alleging medical malpractice by or against a person or party, the total amount of damages for non-economic loss recoverable by all plaintiffs, resulting from the negligence of all defendants, shall not exceed $280,000.00 unless, as the result of the negligence of 1 or more of the defendants, 1 or more of the following exceptions apply as determined by the court pursuant to section 6304, in which case damages for non-economic loss shall not exceed $500,000.00:
(a) The plaintiff is hemiplegic, paraplegic, or quadriplegic resulting in a total permanent functional loss of 1 or more limbs caused by 1 or more of the following:
(i) Injury to the brain.
(ii) Injury to the spinal cord.
(b) The plaintiff has permanently impaired cognitive capacity rendering him or her incapable of making independent, responsible life decisions and permanently incapable of independently performing the activities of normal, daily living.
(c) There has been permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ resulting in the inability to procreate.
While defendants have not contested that, as a result of her stroke, Shinholster satisfied § 1483(1)(a) and (b), they and the Chief Justice contend that the higher damages cap applies only if the injured person continues to suffer one of the enumerated conditions set forth in § 1483 at the time of judgment. Post at 15-16. Because Mrs. Shinholster was dead at the time of judgment, defendants and the Chief Justice reason that the higher cap cannot apply. In support of their position, they rely upon the fact that the statute specifically uses the present tense of verbs, i.e., "is" and "has," and that the statute provides that the lower tier is to apply "unless, as the result of the negligence of 1 or more of the defendants, 1 or more of the following exceptions apply as determined by the court pursuant to section 6304 . . . ." Post at 15-16. Because a trial court reduces damages pursuant to § 6304 only after the jury has rendered its verdict, defendants and the Chief Justice conclude that the present tense verbs in the statute refer to that precise moment in time a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|