collateral source rule in Michigan

1990As the Court in Blacha, supra, p 178 , indicated, the trial court must be careful to "instruct the jury as to each of the theories of recovery advanced by the opposing parties, clearly advising that if plaintiff’s contention is believed,” the other evidence may not serve "to mitigate damages.” The trial court’s opinion on plaintiff’s motion in limine states, in relevant part: I do believe, after reading both the motion and the response and both briefs, that due to this Court’s understanding of the collateral source rule, and due to defense counsel’s request to show motive as a result of the al

1990As the Court in Blacha, supra, p 178 , indicated, the trial court must be careful to "instruct the jury as to each of the theories of recovery advanced by the opposing parties, clearly advising that if plaintiff's contention is believed," the other evidence may not serve "to mitigate damages." [14] The trial court's opinion on plaintiff's motion in limine states, in relevant part: I do believe, after reading both the motion and the response and both briefs, that due to this Court's understanding of the collateral source rule, and due to defense counsel's request to show motive as a result of t

2002See Corl v Huron Castings, Inc, 450 Mich 620, 626-628 ; 544 NW2d 278 (1996) (refusing to apply the collateral source rule for tort *52 damages to an employment contract); Ferrett v General Motors Corp, 438 Mich 235, 243 ; 475 NW2d 243 (1991) (refusing to recognize a cause of action in tort for negligent evaluation of an employee).

2002See Corl v Huron Castings, Inc, 450 Mich 620, 626-628 ; 544 NW2d 278 (1996) (refusing to apply the collateral source rule for tort *52 damages to an employment contract); Ferrett v General Motors Corp, 438 Mich 235, 243 ; 475 NW2d 243 (1991) (refusing to recognize a cause of action in tort for negligent evaluation of an employee).

2019However, M Civ JI 3.06 pertains only to insurance, not Medicaid coverage, and Medicaid payments do not fit with the definition of “collateral source” under MCL 600.6303, Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 255 Mich App 339 ; 660 NW2d 361 (2003), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 471 Mich 540 ; 685 NW2d 275 (2004).

2019However, M Civ JI 3.06 pertains only to insurance, not Medicaid coverage, and Medicaid payments do not fit with the definition of “collateral source” under MCL 600.6303, Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 255 Mich App 339 ; 660 NW2d 361 (2003), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 471 Mich 540 ; 685 NW2d 275 (2004).

2019However, M Civ JI 3.06 pertains only to insurance, not Medicaid coverage, and Medicaid payments do not fit with the definition of “collateral source” under MCL 600.6303, Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 255 Mich App 339 ; 660 NW2d 361 (2003), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 471 Mich 540 ; 685 NW2d 275 (2004).

2015Shivers v Schmiege, 285 Mich App 636, 653 ; 776 NW2d 669 (2009).

2015Shivers v Schmiege, 285 Mich App 636, 653 ; 776 NW2d 669 (2009).

2015Moore v Secura Ins, 482 Mich 507, 516 ; 759 NW2d 833 (2008).4 “The collateral source rule provides that compensation due [to] an injured person from an independent source other than another tortfeasor does not operate to lessen damages recoverable from the wrong-doer.” Lynch v Sign of The Beefeater, Inc, 90 Mich App 358, 363 ; 282 NW2d 321 (1979), rev’d on other grounds 407 Mich 866 (1979); see also Bourdon v Read, 30 Mich App 681, 684 ; 186 NW2d 737 (1971).

2015Moore v Secura Ins, 482 Mich 507, 516 ; 759 NW2d 833 (2008).4 “The collateral source rule provides that compensation due [to] an injured person from an independent source other than another tortfeasor does not operate to lessen damages recoverable from the wrong-doer.” Lynch v Sign of The Beefeater, Inc, 90 Mich App 358, 363 ; 282 NW2d 321 (1979), rev’d on other grounds 407 Mich 866 (1979); see also Bourdon v Read, 30 Mich App 681, 684 ; 186 NW2d 737 (1971).

2015Moore v Secura Ins, 482 Mich 507, 516 ; 759 NW2d 833 (2008).4 “The collateral source rule provides that compensation due [to] an injured person from an independent source other than another tortfeasor does not operate to lessen damages recoverable from the wrong-doer.” Lynch v Sign of The Beefeater, Inc, 90 Mich App 358, 363 ; 282 NW2d 321 (1979), rev’d on other grounds 407 Mich 866 (1979); see also Bourdon v Read, 30 Mich App 681, 684 ; 186 NW2d 737 (1971).

2015Moore v Secura Ins, 482 Mich 507, 516 ; 759 NW2d 833 (2008).4 “The collateral source rule provides that compensation due [to] an injured person from an independent source other than another tortfeasor does not operate to lessen damages recoverable from the wrong-doer.” Lynch v Sign of The Beefeater, Inc, 90 Mich App 358, 363 ; 282 NW2d 321 (1979), rev’d on other grounds 407 Mich 866 (1979); see also Bourdon v Read, 30 Mich App 681, 684 ; 186 NW2d 737 (1971).

2014The Court observed that when “a judgment contains both economic and noneconomic damages, a circuit court’s applying the setoff to the jury’s verdict before application of the collateral source rule would have to determine how to allocate the settlement between economic and noneconomic damages.” Velez, 492 Mich at 25 .

2012Because application of the setoff to the jury’s verdict can result in a recovery beyond those statutorily mandated damages limitations, we further hold that a joint tortfeasor’s settlement must be set off from the final judgment after application of the noneconomic damages cap of MCL 600.1483, as well as the collateral source rule. 1 Markley v Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc, 255 Mich App 245 ; 660 NW2d 344 (2003). 2 We therefore reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming the circuit court’s application of the common-law setoff rule.

2012Because application of the setoff to the jury’s verdict can result in a recovery beyond those statutorily mandated damages limitations, we further hold that a joint tortfeasor’s settlement must be set off from the final judgment after application of the noneconomic damages cap of MCL 600.1483, as well as the collateral source rule. 1 Markley v Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc, 255 Mich App 245 ; 660 NW2d 344 (2003). 2 We therefore reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming the circuit court’s application of the common-law setoff rule.

2012There is no dispute that plaintiff’s total economic damages are eliminated by the collateral source rule because plaintiff has received, and will continue to receive, supplemental security income benefits from the Social Security Administration. 7 The circuit court’s calculation can be demonstrated as follows: Total Jury Verdict $1,524,831.86 Settlement Setoff - $195,000 Post Setoff Verdict $1,329,831.86 $0 due to reduction for Economic Damages collateral sources $394,200 due to statutory cap Noneconomic Damages on noneconomic damages Final Judgment $394,200 8 Velez v Tuma, 283 Mich App 396 ;

2012There is no dispute that plaintiff’s total economic damages are eliminated by the collateral source rule because plaintiff has received, and will continue to receive, supplemental security income benefits from the Social Security Administration. 7 The circuit court’s calculation can be demonstrated as follows: Total Jury Verdict $1,524,831.86 Settlement Setoff - $195,000 Post Setoff Verdict $1,329,831.86 $0 due to reduction for Economic Damages collateral sources $394,200 due to statutory cap Noneconomic Damages on noneconomic damages Final Judgment $394,200 8 Velez v Tuma, 283 Mich App 396 ;

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why

2007John Hosp., 474 Mich. 1089 , 711 N.W.2d 351 (2006); Adair v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 1027 , 709 N.W.2d 567 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231 , 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006); Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 477 Mich. 1228 (2006); People v. Parsons, Docket No. 132975, ___ Mich. ___, 728 N.W.2d 62 (2007); Ruiz v. Clara's Parlor, Docket No. 130847, 477 Mich. 1044 , 728 N.W.2d 855 (2007); and Neal v. Dep't of Corrections, 477 Mich. 1049 , 728 N.W.2d 857 (Docket No. 130862, issued March 23, 2007). [2] Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 213 (C.A.5, 1990). [1] Justice Markman questions why