Introduction

In the landmark case of Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the scope of recoverable damages under the state’s wrongful death act (WDA), specifically whether damages for lost future earnings are permissible. This case highlights critical differences between Michigan’s wrongful death laws and those in New Jersey, offering a comprehensive understanding of how wrongful death claims are treated in these two jurisdictions.

Case Background

Nawal Daher and Mohamad Jomaa, as co-personal representatives of their son Jawad Jumaa’s estate, filed a lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, and the attending physicians for negligence and medical malpractice. Thirteen-year-old Jawad was misdiagnosed with torticollis and later died from bacterial meningitis. The plaintiffs sought damages under the WDA, including for lost future earnings.

Michigan Supreme Court’s Analysis

Justice Viviano, writing for a unanimous court, reaffirmed the precedent set by Baker v. Slack, which held that damages for lost earning capacity are not available under the WDA. The court emphasized that neither the 1971 nor the 1985 amendments to the WDA altered this exclusion. The court’s decision underscored that recoverable damages under the WDA are limited to:

1. Medical and funeral expenses

2. Pain and suffering of the deceased

3. Loss of financial support

4. Loss of society and companionship

Comparison with New Jersey Wrongful Death Law

New Jersey’s wrongful death statute provides a more expansive scope of recoverable damages compared to Michigan. Key differences include:

1. Lost Future Earnings: Unlike Michigan, New Jersey explicitly allows for the recovery of lost future earnings. The New Jersey Wrongful Death Act permits compensation for the economic value of the decedent’s life, which includes future earnings and financial contributions the decedent would have provided to their dependents.

2. Non-Economic Damages: Both states allow for the recovery of non-economic damages such as loss of companionship. However, New Jersey also permits recovery for the loss of household services and guidance, reflecting a broader interpretation of compensatory damages.

3. Pain and Suffering: New Jersey allows for the recovery of damages for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering before death under the Survival Act, a distinction that is more restrictive in Michigan’s wrongful death framework.

4. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress: New Jersey excludes recovery for mental anguish and emotional distress under its wrongful death act but allows it under the Survival Act, provided specific criteria are met. Michigan does not generally permit these types of damages under its wrongful death act.

Practical Implications

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, underscores the state’s conservative approach to wrongful death damages, specifically excluding lost future earnings. This contrasts sharply with New Jersey’s more liberal stance, which allows for comprehensive economic recovery, including lost future earnings.

Legal practitioners in Michigan must navigate these constraints and advise their clients accordingly, focusing on the types of damages that are explicitly permitted. Conversely, attorneys in New Jersey can pursue a broader range of compensatory damages for their clients, reflecting the state’s more inclusive legislative framework.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Daher v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC, reinforces the limited scope of recoverable damages under the state’s wrongful death act, emphasizing statutory and historical interpretations. In comparison, New Jersey’s wrongful death statute provides a more extensive range of recoverable damages, including lost future earnings and various non-economic contributions. Understanding these differences is crucial for legal professionals handling wrongful death claims in these states, ensuring that they effectively advocate for their clients’ rights within the respective legal frameworks.