Michigan Injury Lawyer Blog

December 11, 2018

Michigan Court Discusses the Difference Between Claims of Medical Malpractice and Ordinary Negligence

The allegations laid out in a plaintiff’s complaint are the basis for the claim. Thus, the manner in which a case is pled can have an enormous impact on how it proceeds through the court system. Earlier this year, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion requiring the court to determine whether the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint were medical malpractice claims or ordinary negligence claims. If you have questions of this nature, be sure to reach out to a Michigan medical malpractice attorney.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a hospital after she was injured while being treated at the hospital. Evidently, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital after she had an aneurysm, causing her to suffer a stroke and cardiac arrest. The plaintiff claimed that while she was being treated at the hospital, an aide helped move her to the bathroom and dropped her twice in the process. She claimed that she suffered a torn rotator cuff as a result, requiring her to undergo multiple surgeries, as well as bleeding in her brain.

In her complaint, the plaintiff argued that the hospital was negligent in several ways, including in failing to provide an adequate number of nurses to assist the plaintiff, failing to properly train the nurse, and failing to ensure the plaintiff’s safety. The plaintiff filed the claims against the hospital within three years of her admission at the hospital.

November 26, 2018

Michigan Train Accident Victim Asks for New Trial

by Neumann Law Group

In 2011, the plaintiff was hit and killed by a train in Wayne County, Michigan. His representatives sued the train operators responsible for the crossing where the accident happened. After a trial, the jury found the defendants not liable for the plaintiff’s death. Now the plaintiff is asking for a new trial.

Grounds for a New Trial

In federal court, there are many reasons that a court can grant a new trial. These include that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, there were substantial errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence, or other reasons that leads the court to believe that the trial was unfair. The plaintiff here puts forth five different arguments as to why there should be a new trial.

The first argument that the plaintiff makes is that it was improper for the court to allow in evidence about the plaintiff’s medications. Specifically, the medical examiner’s testimony that the deceased had an antidepressant that can cause suicidal ideations. The plaintiff can only get a new trial by proving that the court abused its discretion by allowing this evidence to be heard by the jury. Here, the Eastern District Court of Michigan held that the evidence was properly allowed in.

November 9, 2018

Healthcare Provider Tries to Intervene in Michigan Car Accident Case

by Neumann Law Group

When one party sues another, sometimes there may be other parties that also want to be part of the lawsuit. There are specific laws that govern who may do so and when a party can join into a lawsuit. The Eastern District of Michigan District Court recently heard a case that illustrates this concept and gives an example of when it may apply.

No-Fault Personal Injury Protection

Michigan is a “no-fault” state. That means insurance policies will pay insured individuals after a car accident no matter who was at fault. In this case, a driver had personal injury protection benefits through a commercial insurer. Personal injury protection is meant to pay for injuries suffered by the driver after a car accident. The plaintiff was later in a car accident where he was injured. As part of treating his injuries, he saw physicians at a Michigan medical provider. Instead of paying the healthcare provider directly, the plaintiff assigned his right to collect on the bills to the healthcare provider. Now, the injured driver is suing his insurance company to collect the benefits he is owed. Thus, the healthcare provider filed a motion to join the lawsuit against the insurer to collect on the money they are owed for the healthcare services.

The trial court dismissed the healthcare provider’s action under recently decided Michigan case law that held that healthcare providers do not have their own cause of action against insurance companies for personal injury protection payments. Further, the court held that under the insurance policy itself, the consent of the defendant is necessary in order for the collection rights to be assigned.

October 15, 2018

Michigan Court Requires Insurance Company to Pay Claim After Accident

by Neumann Law Group

When you buy insurance, you think that you will be covered in the event of the accident. This is especially true if you answer all the questions truthfully and continue to pay your premiums. However, sometimes insurance companies may see things differently and try to get out of paying the money that you are owed. If this happens to you, you should contact a knowledgeable Michigan personal injury to help you hold the insurance company accountable. In a case recently heard by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the court upheld a ruling that forced the insurance company to pay the damages that the injured plaintiff was entitled to.

The Insurance Policy

In 2006, the husband of the plaintiff purchased a no-fault insurance policy for their family cars. The plaintiff used one of the vehicles for one half-day a week to deliver mail. The insurance policy asked if any of the vehicles were used for business. The agent answered no, even though the plaintiff’s husband testified that he told the insurance agent about the plaintiff’s part-time delivery job. The policy automatically renewed. In 2012, the plaintiff got a new car and her husband got coverage for that car as well. He testified that he once again told the insurance agent that his wife used the car to deliver mail.

October 5, 2018

Appeals Court Upholds Premises Liability Verdict in Michigan

by Neumann Law Group

Owners of property have a duty of reasonable care to keep visitors safe. It doesn’t matter whether the property is owned by a friend, business, or the government. While nothing can ever be 100% safe, the definition of what a “reasonable” amount of safety entails will depend on the circumstances. For example, a grocery store will be held to a different standard than a construction site. This principle is called premises liability. If you have been injured on the property of another you need to contact a knowledgeable Michigan premises liability attorney to help you decide if the property owner should be held accountable.

Premises Liability

Part of what determines the standard of reasonable care is the status of the injured person. In other words, whether you are trespassing on someone’s property or were specifically invited on to the property will make a difference in determining liability. In a case recently heard by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the injured person was an “invitee.” An invitee is someone who is on the property for the purpose of business, such as when you go to the store. In most cases, business owners owe invitees the greatest duty of care.

September 12, 2018

Michigan Court Hears Slip and Fall Case

by Neumann Law Group

If you are injured on someone else’s property, including businesses and government property, you may want to hold the property owner responsible for the damages incurred due to your injuries. However, in order to recover you will need to prove certain specific things, discussed in more detail below. While cases like the one described here can illustrate some of the important points of Michigan personal injury law, only a knowledgeable Western Michigan personal injury attorney can tell you how your case is likely to play out in court.

Michigan Premises Liability

In order for the property owner to be liable for your injuries, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent. Negligence is defined as when one party owes another party a duty and they breach the duty, causing injury. Generally, business owners have a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for customers. Of course, what is “reasonable” depends greatly on the facts and circumstances of the case. For example, this case revolves around a slip and fall in a gas station parking lot. What is reasonably safe in these circumstances is different than what may be considered reasonable in a junkyard or a restaurant.

September 7, 2018

Michigan Court Addresses Attendant Care Benefits After Injury

by Neumann Law Group

If you or a loved one has been injured in a Michigan accident, there are many potential damages that you may be able to recover. Some of the potential categories of damages include lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and other costs or lost income related to the accident. This case revolves around one of those kinds of damages, specifically attendant care benefits. Attendant care benefits may be paid in situations where the injured person needs support that cannot be given by their family or caretakers. Attendants are people that come in anywhere from 24 hours a day/seven days a week to an hour or less a week to assist the injured person with their daily care.

The Accident and Injuries

In 2001, a five year old girl was injured in a car accident. Her mother was killed in the accident. As they did not have insurance, the claim was assigned through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. The state plan then assigned the claim to State Farm Insurance. In the time since the accident, the insurance carrier paid out only a little over $5,000 in attendant care benefits.

August 14, 2018

Michigan Appeals Court Addresses Governmental Immunity

by Neumann Law Group

After a car accident in which two people were killed and one was seriously injured, the plaintiffs (including the estates of the deceased parties) brought suit against the Eaton County Road Commission. They alleged that the Road Commission was negligent in its maintenance of the roads. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident due to negligent maintenance of road conditions, you should contact a skilled Michigan car accident attorney as soon as possible. As this case illustrates, the time frames and requirements for bringing suit against a government agency are very specific. In order to make sure you do not lose the ability to bring your claim forward, you should contact a personal injury attorney as soon as possible.Governmental Immunity

The government is generally immune from suit, but some statutes give individuals the right to bring claims against the government in certain circumstances. One of these statutes is the governmental tort liability act (GTLA). The GTLA requires that notice of suit be given to the county road commissioner’s chairperson within 60 days of the injury. However, there had been some confusion in the past about the applicable time period. This confusion was cleared up once and for all when a case called Streng came down in 2016.

Now, the court in this case needed to determine whether Streng would apply retroactively. In other words, did the 60-day time period apply to this case? If so, the case would be dismissed for noncompliance of notice, since the notice was given more than 60 days after the accident.

August 7, 2018

Michigan Court Holds Foreseeability Is the Test for Inherent Risk

by Neumann Law Group

There are some sports that are known to have a significant risk of injury, such as skiing or rock climbing. Under the tort law theory of inherent risk, people who voluntarily engage in these sports cannot hold anyone else accountable for injuries caused by the sport itself unless the negligence rises to a certain level. In other words, if you go skiing and break your leg, unless the owners of the ski resort were extremely negligent, you will probably not be able to sue them for damages. Without this heightened negligence standard for inherent risk, no ski resorts could operate because the costs would be prohibitive.Facts of This Case

The Michigan Supreme Court heard a Michigan personal injury case related to inherent risk. In this case, two men were golfing. One was driving the golf cart when it collided with the other man. Their stories differ about whether the cart suddenly struck the injured man or whether the injured man jumped in front of the cart. For the purposes of this appeal, it was irrelevant which scenario was correct. Here, the court looked at whether being hit by a golf cart is an inherent risk of golfing, as the driver of the cart argued. Conversely, they could have found that being hit by the cart is not an inherent risk of golfing. Whether the risk is inherent or not is relevant because it determines the standard of negligence that needs to be applied. These cases are always extremely fact-specific, which is why it is so important to contact a skilled personal injury attorney as soon as possible after an injury.

Negligence Standards and Inherent Risk

July 10, 2018

Michigan Court of Appeals Addresses Liability During Vehicle Maintenance

by Neumann Law Group

In a procedurally complicated opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals attempted to clarify whether the “parked vehicle exception” applied to injury during maintenance of the vehicle. In order to collect damages from an automobile insurer, the vehicle must be involved in the injury. This may seem straightforward and obvious, but as often happens with the law, it is not. Michigan law appears to hold that auto insurers do not have to pay for injuries when the vehicle is parked. However, the law also seems to say that insurance will cover injuries that occur during vehicle maintenance. This case looks at these potentially contradictory aspects of the law and discusses how the law should be applied in the instant case and cases with similar facts. While a case may seem simple at first, that is not always the reality. That is why if you are injured in any kind of accident, you should consult an experienced Michigan personal injury attorney as soon as possible. They can help frame and guide your case in a way that leads to the best results.

Facts of the Case

Both parties agreed on the basic facts of the case. A woman was using the vehicle provided by her employer. She stopped at a self-serve carwash to wash it, and as she was washing it she slipped and fell on ice. No one knows whether the ice was created by the water she was using to wash the vehicle, or if it was already on the ground. She attempted to recover damages from the insurer her employer used. It refused to pay for the injuries. The insurance company argued that the case should be dismissed because the injury just happened to occur near the employer’s car and the law excepts insurers from being responsible for accidents when the car is parked. Conversely, the injured party argued that since her injuries occurred during the maintenance of the car, under statutory and case law she is still entitled to payment from the insurance company. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, which would dismiss the case. The court found for the plaintiff and allowed the case to continue for the reasons explained below.