Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #278215; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Zahra, and Shapiro; 2-1 (Shapiro, concurring in part and dissenting in part); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [3107(1)(a)]
General / Miscellaneous [3107]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
COURSE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of no cause of action involving attendant care benefits, finding that because there was a question of fact regarding the reason for plaintiff’s need for 24 hour attendant care, the trial court properly denied her motion for summary disposition and a directed verdict. Moreover, the court determined that the trial court properly refused to give a requested jury instruction because the requested instruction applied in negligence actions and not no-fault actions.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that, despite plaintiff’s claims to the contrary, she was not entitled to summary disposition because the medical evidence that defendant presented before and during the trial directly contradicted plaintiff’s medical evidence. Moreover, the court determined that the trial court properly refused to give a requested jury instruction. Plaintiff asked the court to give M Civ JI 50.11, which provides that:
“If an injury suffered by plaintiff is a combined product of both a preexisting [disease/injury/state of health] and the effects of defendant’s negligent conduct, it is your duty to determine and award damages caused by defendant’s conduct alone. You must separate the damages caused by defendant’s conduct from the condition which was preexisting if it is possible to do so.
However, if after careful consideration, you are unable to separate the damages caused by defendant’s conduct from those which were preexisting, then the entire amount of plaintiff’s damages must be assessed against the defendant.”
However, the court explained, because the requested instruction was a negligence instruction, it did not apply in a first-party no-fault action and would only serve to confuse the jury.
