John Lacaria Jr v. Aurora Borealis Motor Inn Inc, 329327

Background

Plaintiff, who has significant visual impairments (detached retinas, scarred cornea) but can drive and read, traveled to St. Ignace with a dog he trained to assist him; the dog had no formal training or documentation.
Plaintiff sought lodging at Aurora Borealis Motor Inn; staff refused him a room after he identified the dog as a service dog.
Plaintiff then went to Wayside Motel and was likewise denied a room after the Aurora owner called and identified him as a man with a service dog.
Plaintiff sued under the PWDCRA and the ADA, alleging humiliation and emotional injury from the denials; the trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, dismissing the ADA claim and concluding plaintiff was not a ‘‘disabled’’ person under the PWDCRA, that his dog was not a certified service animal, and that emotional damages were not compensable.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding there were genuine issues of material fact on disability, whether the dog could be an adaptive aid/service animal under the PWDCRA, and whether emotional damages were compensable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff is "disabled" under the PWDCRA	Plaintiff's impaired vision qualifies as a determinable physical characteristic under MCL 37.1103	Plaintiff's impairments do not demonstrably limit his ability to use public accommodations	Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists; the statutory definition covers physical characteristics even if plaintiff can function with or without accommodation
Whether the dog qualifies as a service animal/adaptive aid under the PWDCRA	The dog provides visual-assistance tasks and thus is an adaptive device/service animal despite no formal certification	Dog lacked formal training and statutory certification in effect at the time, so it was not a qualifying service animal	Reversed: question of fact whether the dog performed tasks related to disability; absence of formal training/credentials not dispositive under PWDCRA
Whether failure to comply with criminal statute MCL 750.502c matters here	Plaintiff contends defendants violated the criminal "no-pet" statute by refusing him	Defendants note the statute required documented training/identifying attire then and was not violated here; criminal statute not dispositive in civil claim	Court: criminal statute status not dispositive in civil PWDCRA analysis; defendants did not clearly violate it and plaintiff’s dog did not meet that statute’s then-requirements
Whether emotional-distress damages are available under the PWDCRA	Plaintiff seeks recovery for humiliation, anxiety, increased medication, and inability to eat/sleep after the incident	Defendants argued such damages are not compensable under the PWDCRA and only exemplary damages (not available) would cover feelings-based claims	Reversed: emotional-distress damages are not per se unavailable; factual questions exist whether plaintiff’s emotional harms are compensable under the PWDCRA

Key Cases Cited

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard of review for summary disposition)
Rourk v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 458 Mich. 25 (legislative addition of "with or without accommodation" lowers handicap proof threshold)
Chiles v. Machine Shop, Inc., 238 Mich. App. 462 (courts look to ADA guidance when interpreting PWDCRA)
Miller v. Detroit, 185 Mich. App. 789 (distinguished; relied on prior statute lacking "with or without accommodation")
McPeak v. McPeak, 233 Mich. App. 483 (discussing exemplary damages for injury to feelings)
Bachman v. Swan Harbour Ass'n, 252 Mich. App. 400 (exemplary damages not provided under PWDCRA)
Dep't of Civil Rights ex rel. Johnson v. Silver Dollar Cafe, 198 Mich. App. 547 (emotional-distress damages may be available under analogous civil-rights statute)
Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4 (emotional distress in non-negligence actions need not require objective physical injury)