Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 326270; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Markey, and O’Brien; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that, on remand, plaintiff should not have been permitted to admit evidence of a $28/hour attendant-care rate that the no-fault insurer had previously paid to plaintiff’s caretakers, because the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.
After plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury when a car struck him while walking, his parents provided him around-the-clock attendant care. Defendant Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA) paid plaintiff PIP benefits, classifying his parents as home health aides and paying them $10.25 to $10.50 an hour. Plaintiff filed this action, asserting his parents qualified as “behavioral technicians,” which entitled them to a higher hourly rate. ACIA did not dispute the number of hours that plaintiff’s parents cared for him; rather, the only disputed issue was the charge for the services of plaintiff’s parents. ACIA violated discovery orders and the trial court precluded it from presenting any witnesses or evidence. In September 2009, a jury awarded plaintiff attendant-care services at a rate of $28/hour.
In the first appeal, the Court of Appeals, via an order, vacated the trial court judgment and remanded the case. On remand, plaintiff moved to admit evidence that ACIA had paid a $28/hour rate to his parents for attendant care after the jury’s verdict in September 2009. ACIA responded the $28/hour rate was based solely on the jury’s award to plaintiff in September 2009, and that it paid the $28/hour rate to avoid further litigation and penalty interest. ACIA further argued that admitting evidence of the $28/hour rate would be unfairly prejudicial. The trial court disagreed, finding the $28/hour rate was not prejudicial to ACIA.
In the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling on the $28/hour rate, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probate value. In this regard, the Court noted that ACIA paid plaintiff’s parents $28/hour even after the appeals court vacated the jury verdict and that this was the amount that plaintiff’s parents actually received. The Court said:
“We conclude that the evidence is probative because it is an amount that ACIA voluntarily paid and that the caregivers actually received for attendant care. … However, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the evidence is not highly probative. … We conclude that the trial court did not err by concluding that the evidence was relevant under MRE 401 and 402.”
However, the Court of Appeals continued by finding that, even if evidence of the hourly rate was relevant, its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value and MRE 403 did not allow it.
The trial court’s decision to allow the evidence fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes, the Court of Appeals concluded, because the hourly rate evidence was only “marginally probative” and the dangers of admitting it were too high — including that the jury would give the evidence undue weight and it would lead to a confusing mini-trial on extraneous issues.
