Medical malpractice damages limitation; MCL 600.1482; “Phantom damages”; Greer v Advantage Health; Remittitur standards; MCR 2.611; Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp

The court held that MCL 600.1482(1)(a) operates at the post-verdict stage to limit recovery for past medical expenses to “actual damages for medical care,” but affirmed the judgment because the jury’s award was supported by the record and remittitur was properly denied. The decedent died following a tracheostomy accident during dialysis at defendant-hospital. The jury found defendants negligent and awarded $1,218,118.63 in economic damages, allocating 65% fault to defendants and 35% to the decedent. Relying on MCL 600.1482, defendants argued the verdict impermissibly included “phantom damages,” amounts billed but not paid. The trial court entered judgment for $962,624.72 as proposed by plaintiff and denied defendants’ motion for remittitur. On appeal, the court analyzed the 2016 amendment codified at MCL 600.1482, enacted to close what was described as a “loophole that permits a plaintiff to recover for medical expenses never owed or paid.” The court explained that although subsection (1)(b) bars admission of such evidence, subsection (1)(a) separately applies at the post-verdict stage to ensure recoverable damages do not exceed actual payments or liabilities. The court reconciled MCL 600.1482 with MCL 600.6306a, holding that “the sound interpretation of the statutory scheme is to recognize MCL 600.1482(1)(a) as applicable at the post-verdict stage.” It rejected defendants’ contention that the verdict represented only unpaid medical bills, observing that they had drafted the verdict form and that “‘any attempt to parse the jury verdict . . . would be pure speculation[.]’” A letter showing $1.4 million in billings and $188,734 in “conditional payments” constituted evidence of “any remaining dollar amount that the plaintiff is liable to pay for the medical care.” Because defendants presented no proof negating liability for those amounts, “the trial court was tasked with determining whether the evidence substantiated plaintiff’s claim of incurred damages” and found sufficient support. The court concluded that the award “fell reasonably within the range corroborated by the evidence” and was not excessive, emphasizing that “the power of remittitur should be exercised with restraint.”