Estate of Hayden Raymond Timothy Hinkley v. McLaren Health Care Co ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •             If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
    revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
    STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    KAREN STEWART-HINKLEY, Individually and as                           UNPUBLISHED
    Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF                             December 22, 2022
    HAYDEN RAYMOND TIMOTHY HINKLEY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v                                                                    No. 358988
    Ingham Circuit Court
    MCLAREN HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,                                      LC No. 19-000815-NH
    MCLAREN MEDICAL GROUP, MCLAREN
    GREATER LANSING, and AMY FEDERICO,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PATEL, P.J., and CAMERON and LETICA, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    In this medical malpractice action under the wrongful-death act, the trial court erroneously
    dismissed plaintiff’s claim for Hayden Hinkley’s lost earnings. The trial court ignored this Court’s
    established precedent, Denney v Kent Co Road Comm, 
    317 Mich App 727
    , 731-732; 
    896 NW2d 808
     (2016) and, instead, relied on Baker v Slack, 
    319 Mich 703
    ; 
    30 NW2d 403
     (1948), which “has
    clearly been overruled or superseded, and . . .was no longer ‘good law’ long before this Court
    decided Denney.” In re Jumaa Estate, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2022); slip op at 4.
    Although lost earnings are not expressly listed in MCL 600.2922(6) as a category of
    damages recoverable under the wrongful-death statute, the Denney Court explained that the
    Legislature’s use of the word “including” reflects an intent “to permit the award of any type of
    damages, economic and noneconomic, deemed justified by the facts of the particular case.”
    Denney, 317 Mich App at 731-732 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly,
    “damages for lost earnings are allowed under the wrongful death statute.” Id. at 732. Because our
    Supreme Court has not overturned Denney or the relevant legal principle therein, it is controlling.
    MCR 7.215(J)(1); Jumaa, __ Mich App at __; slip op at 3-4. Pursuant to Denney, plaintiff may
    recover damages for Hayden’s lost earnings to the same extent that Hayden could have recovered
    those damages if he had survived. Jumaa, __ Mich App at __; slip op at 4.
    -1-
    We reverse the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to preclude recovery of
    Hayden’s lost earnings and remand the case for proceedings in accordance with this opinion. We
    do not retain jurisdiction.
    /s/ Sima G. Patel
    /s/ Thomas C. Cameron
    /s/ Anica Letica
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 358988

Filed Date: 12/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2022