Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-2623; Published
Judges Danhof, Brennan, and R. H. Campbell; 2-1; Opinion by Judge Campbell
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 88 Mich App 364; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a 2-1 decision written by Judge Campbell, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff that private duty nurses were reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s daughter's care and that defendant, Federal Kemper, was obligated to pay for these services under the provisions of §3107 of the no-fault statute. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not come reversible error when it allowed registered nurses to testify that in their opinion private duty nurses were reasonably necessary for the care of plaintiff’s daughter. The Court noted that each of the witnesses had a sound nursing education and considerable experience and each was familiar with the specialized treatment and care that a nurse had to provide a patient. In addition, each witness had also spent a considerable amount of time acting as a private nurse for plaintiff’s daughter and thus each was aware of the amount of time and effort that was needed to provide her with the proper level of nursing care. In addition, the Court held that it was not reversible error to permit one of the registered nurses to state that in his opinion the plaintiff’s daughter would have stopped breathing if a private nurse had not been constantly on duty. The Court noted that the witness giving this opinion was a qualified registered nurse who had cared for the patient and had actually observed breathing difficulties. Even though the defendant had introduced the testimony of doctors that private nurses were not necessary in order to provide reasonable care, the Court of Appeals held it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and render a verdict.
Chief Judge Danhof dissented on the basis that the testimony of the registered nurses (although properly admitted into evidence) was not sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the services were reasonably necessary in light of the fact that the physician's testimony was to the contrary. That being the situation, Judge Danhof felt that the trial court should have directed a verdict in defendant's favor.
Judge Danhof argued that in these kinds of cases dealing with the necessity of medical treatment, a rule should be imposed requiring the expert testimony of a physician as to treatment necessity. Such a rule would advance the goal of the no-fault statute of avoiding unnecessary litigation and would also assist the insurance companies in calculating the extent of their risks.
