Where a defendant was granted partial summary disposition, the trial court erred when it determined that MCL 600.2922(6) does not authorize recovery for the value of services that would have been performed by the decedent.
Reversed in part and remanded.
“Plaintiff, the Estate of Kathleen M. Machelski, by its personal representative Marsha Schroeder, appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order granting partial summary disposition to defendant, Dr. Subbarao Chavali, under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. …
“… Dr. Chavali filed a motion for partial summary disposition as to any of plaintiff’s claims for damages that included the loss of Machelski’s caretaking services to her husband. After Dr. Chavali filed his motion for partial summary disposition, our Supreme Court released Daher v Prime Healthcare Servs.-Garden City, LLC, 515 Mich 254; 29 NW3d 136 (2024), which Dr. Chavali argued supported his motion. …
“We granted leave to appeal, limited to the issue ‘whether the trial court erred when it determined that MCL 600.2922(6) does not authorize recovery for the value of services that would have been performed by the decedent.’ …
“On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition regarding plaintiff’s claims for damages. …
“Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the Wrongful Death Act (WDA) excludes the loss of household or caretaking services. …
“Importantly, however, ‘loss-of-services’ damages is distinct from ‘damages for lost future earnings,’ and, as this Court has recently held, ‘loss-of-services damages remain available under the WDA following Daher, as they have been since Michigan’s death act was enacted in 1848.’ Demott v VHS Harper-Hutzel Hosp, Inc, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket -5- No. 369500); slip op at 9. 6 In the current case, the trial court held that MCL 600.2922(6), prohibited any damages for the loss of Machelski’s caretaking services when considering our Supreme Court’s decision in Daher, 515 Mich at 259-261. But, as this Court held in Demott, loss-of-services damages are still recoverable under the WDA.
“Defendant argues that this Court’s holding in Demott is somehow contrary to our Supreme Court’s holding in Daher, but defendant ignores that our ‘Supreme Court has never held that loss-of-services damages are unavailable under the WDA.’ Demott, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 8. Daher did not address the issue of loss-of-services damages, but Demott makes clear that ‘loss-of-services damages remain available under the WDA.’ … Therefore, the trial court erred when it held that plaintiff was prohibited from seeking damages for the loss of Machelski’s services under Daher.
“Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial court denied recovery for social security benefits when it determined that plaintiff could not recover for lost future-earning capacity. But, as defendant concedes, the trial court has made no determination concerning the decedent’s social security benefits. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this Court and will not be considered.
“Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”