Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 108313; Published
Judges Wahls, Gillis, and Jansen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 187 Mich App 245; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Incurred Expense Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Self-Employed Persons [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion regarding a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for allowable expenses and work loss, the Court of Appeals held as follows.
First, the court reversed that portion of the jury verdict which represented compensation for past allowable services which were not actually incurred by the plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff a total of $280,000 for past aid care. However, there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that plaintiff actually incurred this aid care. The court stated: "Although there was testimony indicating that to some extent plaintiff needed some sort of aid care, there was no evidence that this aid care was actually provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff received some help from friends with whom she lived. However, the extent of any aid to plaintiff was not established sufficient for finding that plaintiff incurred semi-dependent past aid care." The court went on to say that there are three requirements that must be satisfied under §3107(a) in order for an insured to be liable for expenses. First, the expense must have been incurred. Second, the expense must have been for a product, service, or accommodation reasonably necessary for the injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation. And third, the amount of the expense must have been reasonable.
The second holding of the court modified the trial court's judgment that defendant pay plaintiff the sum of $4,000 per month for attendant care provided by a facility known as Rainbow Tree Center. With regard to the ruling ordering the insured to pay future monthly expenses, the court stated: "We find that the trial court properly entered a judgment on the allowable future expenses determined by the jury, except to the extent that the trial court's judgment requires payment without regard to whether the expenses are actually incurred. We modify the judgment as to future expenses to allow the trial court to retain jurisdiction over future expenses and to require documentation of the actual expenses."
In its third holding, the court held that the jury properly awarded work-loss benefits for plaintiff’s lost profit. In this regard, the court stated: "Work loss includes not only lost wages, but lost profit which is attributable to personal effort and self-employment... However, the work loss must be income lost due to the personal injury. Plaintiff’s position as a joint worker with her husband created the potential for lost income even where plaintiff did not receive an hourly pay. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff potentially lost income resulting from the share in profits attributable to personal effort and self-employment ... However, we are convinced that the amount reached should be reduced by 15% as required by statute.”
