Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Medical Malpractice Damages Cap

Kerr Russell
Contact

Kerr Russell

The Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to weigh in on an important question about whether the state’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits violates the Michigan Constitution. (In re Certified Question from United States Dist Court for E Dist of Michigan, 21 NW3d 918 (Mich, 2025)).

The decision came in response to a request from a federal court that asked Michigan’s Supreme Court Justices to clarify this issue, which is a significant question for patients’ rights advocates and healthcare providers alike.

The certified question arose as part of a federal medical malpractice lawsuit (Beaubien v. Trivedi, No. 21-CV-11000, (ED Mich, November 8, 2024) in which the plaintiff challenged Michigan’s noneconomic damages cap, codified in MCL 600.1483, arguing that it violates the right to a trial by jury, equal protection, and the separation of powers under the Michigan Constitution of 1963. While the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits of the question, its decision potentially signals that Michigan’s longstanding limits on malpractice damage awards are unlikely to be changed by the Courts.

Since it became law, opponents to the damages cap typically have challenged its constitutionality on several different grounds. It is argued that the cap takes away the injured parties right to a jury trial, which should include the jury’s power to determine the total amount of damages. It is also argued that the damages cap treats injured parties unequally by artificially limiting the amount certain individuals can recover while allowing other individuals to potentially make a complete recovery. Further, it is argued that the damages cap interferes with the judiciary’s function of settling legal disputes, including the nature and extent of damages.

In a brief order, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question. Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh filed a concurring opinion explaining why the Court did not view certification as appropriate in this case. The concurring opinion emphasized that the certified question procedure is not intended to relitigate issues already resolved by binding state precedent. It was pointed out that in Phillips v Mirac, Inc., 470 Mich 415 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court upheld an analogous statutory cap on damages and rejected constitutional challenges which were very similar to those raised in the Beaubien case. Justice Cavanagh noted that Phillips addressed the jury trial right, equal protection, and due process claims, and concluded that damage caps do not violate these constitutional guarantees.

Justice Richard Bernstein dissented, indicating that he would have granted the request to hear oral argument and address the certified question.

Although the Court did not directly address the merits of the plaintiff’s arguments, its reliance on Phillips signals that MCL 600.1483 remains constitutionally sound under existing Michigan law. Plaintiffs challenging the damages cap in state or federal court will face an uphill battle unless the Michigan Supreme Court revisits Phillips or the Michigan Legislature takes action to change the existing law.

For doctors and hospitals, the decision reinforces the legal protections they’ve come to rely on under Michigan’s tort reform laws.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Kerr Russell

Written by:

Kerr Russell
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Kerr Russell on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide