Braverman v. Granger
303 Mich. App. 587
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Rozier, a Jehovah’s Witness, refused whole blood and blood products; doctors treated antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplant.
- Rozier’s condition deteriorated with internal bleeding and severely low hemoglobin, leading to surgical intervention.
- A blood transfusion was strongly recommended to save Rozier’s life, but Rozier and her spouse refused due to religious beliefs.
- Plaintiff, as personal representative of Rozier’s estate, sued for medical malpractice; defendants moved for summary disposition.
- Trial court adopted an objective First Amendment‑neutral approach to the doctrine of avoidable consequences to assess damages.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the objective approach precludes recovery of Rozier’s death damages and declined consideration of religion in mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether avoidable consequences bars death damages when refusal was religion-based | Rozier’s refusal was religiously motivated; avoidable consequences should consider religion. | Objective, religion‑neutral standard should determine mitigation; if transfusion was reasonable, death damages are not recoverable. | Yes; objective approach bars death damages. |
| Whether First Amendment constraints require considering religious beliefs in mitigation | Religion should be treated as a factor in reasonableness of mitigation. | Do not consider religion; apply neutral objective standard. | No; adopt objective standard that excludes religious considerations. |
| Whether plaintiff waived non-death damages arguments | Should preserve claims beyond death damages for pain and suffering. | Waived these claims by trial court proceedings and representations. | Yes; waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1991) (adopts objective vs. case-by-case mitigation approach; discusses First Amendment concerns)
- Shiffer v Bd of Ed of Gibraltar Sch Dist, 393 Mich 190 (1974) (avoidability of damages; mitigation principle in Michigan )
- Kirby v Larson, 400 Mich 585 (1977) (distinguishes avoidable consequences from contributory negligence; discussion of mitigation)
- Morris v Clawson Tank Co, 459 Mich 256 (1998) (mitigation of damages principle in Michigan)
- Talley v Courter, 93 Mich 473 (1892) (early articulation of avoidable consequences principle)
- Corlett v Caserta, 204 Ill App 3d 403 (1990) (illustrates objective standard in mitigation discussions)
- Williams v Bright, 230 AD2d 548 (1997) (addressed jury instructions and religion in mitigation; later criticized)
- Shorter v Drury, 103 Wash 2d 645 (1985) (mitigation/neighboring cases on duty to avoid damages)
- Nashert & Sons v McCann, 460 P.2d 941 (Okla. 1969) (mitigation standards in divergent jurisdictions)
- Placek v Sterling Hts, 405 Mich 638 (1979) ( commentary on common-law evolution and independence from abrogation assumptions)