Case Name: GREEN v. FEDERAL KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-02-05
Citations: 88 Mich. App. 364
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2623
Parties: GREEN v FEDERAL KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: Danhof, C.J., and V. J. Brennan and R. H. Campbell, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 88
Pages: 364–375

Head Matter:
GREEN v FEDERAL KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 77-2623.
Submitted June 7, 1978, at Grand Rapids.
Decided February 5, 1979.
Leave to appeal denied, 406 Mich 964.
Eleanor Green, the mother and guardian of Tanis Green, brought an action against Federal Kemper Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment that 24-hour private-duty nursing services were reasonably necessary for the care of Tanis, who was injured in an automobile accident, and that the defendant was obligated to pay for those services under the terms of its automobile insurance policy. A judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, Montcalm Circuit Court, Paul Nicolich, J. The defendant appeals, alleging error in the admission of testimony of registered nurses to the effect that private-duty nursing services were necessary. Held:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony of the nurses. They were familiar with nursing care and each had spent considerable time caring for Tanis Green.
Affirmed.
Danhof, C.J., dissented. Although he would agree that admission of the nurses’ testimony was not an abuse of discretion, he would hold that this testimony was not sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the nursing services were necessary in the face of testimony by two of the doctors in charge of the patient’s care that such nursing services were not necessary. The fact that the witnesses are nurses does not necessarily indicate that they are competent to give expert opinion on the necessity for nursing care. It is the physician who is responsible for making that decision and who bears the responsibility for his decision. Judge Danhof is in favor of a rule which would require physicians to give expert testimony on the necessity of a particular treatment, in order to more effectively resolve the issues involved and further the goal of the no-fault automobile insurance statute, which is to avoid litigation.
References for Points in Headnotes
31 Am Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence §§ 3, 16-18, 26, 27, 30, 31,105.
4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 399.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 336-343.
31 Am Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence §§ 26, 27, 95, 103, 105.
Opinion op the Court
1. Witnesses — Expert Witnesses — Nurses — Necessity for Nursing Services.
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony by registered nurses regarding the necessity for 24-hour private-duty nurses to properly care for a victim of an automobile accident, in an action to enforce payment for such services under an automobile insurance policy, where each of the nurses testifying was familiar with nursing care and had spent considerable time caring for the victim.
2. Witnesses — Expert Witnesses — Nurses — Necessity for Nursing Services.
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a private-duty nurse who had witnessed a patient’s breathing problems to testify as to whether the patient would have stopped breathing if a private-duty nurse had not been present.
3. Appeal and Error — Prejudice — Testimony — Waiver.
A party who has attempted to draw the Court of Appeal’s attention to an instance of allegedly prejudicial testimony but who has not stated who gave the testimony or supplied the Court with any transcript reference so that it could be easily located has thereby waived any prejudice which the testimony may have caused.
Dissent by Danhof, C.J.
4. Witnesses — Expert Witnesses — Evidence — Sufficiency — Jury Question — Nurses — Doctors — Need for Services.
Testimony by three nurses that the services of private-duty nurses were necessary to properly care for an accident victim was not sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the services were reasonably necessary in the face of testimony to the contrary by two qualiñed, unbiased physicians who had been caring for the patient.
5. Witnesses — Expert Witnesses — Nurses — Need for Services.
The practice of nursing does not include acts of medical diagnosis or the prescribing of a medical remedy, treatment or medication; therefore, the fact that a witness is a nurse does not necessarily indicate that the witness is competent to give expert testimony on the necessity for providing a patient with 24-hour private-duty nursing services.
6. Witnesses — Expert Witnesses — Physicians and Surgeons — Nurses — Need for Services.
Testimony regarding the necessity for providing a patient with private-duty nurses should come from physicians rather than nurses.
Rensberry & Foster, P.C. (by Richard G. Ben-singer), for plaintiff.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan (by Edward D. Wells, Kenneth L. Block and Don V. Souter), for defendant.
Before: Danhof, C.J., and V. J. Brennan and R. H. Campbell, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
R. H. Campbell, J.
After plaintiff's daughter, Tanis Green, had been hospitalized for injuries she had received in an automobile accident, plaintiff filed suit in Montcalm County Circuit Court claiming that private duty nurses were reasonably necessary for her daughter's care and that under MCL 500.3107; MSA 24.13107 defendant was obligated to pay for their services. A jury found that such services were reasonably necessary and that defendant should bear their cost. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant first contends that reversible error was committed when the trial court allowed registered nurses to testify that in their opinion private duty nurses were reasonably necessary for the care of Tanis Green. It is this Court's opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing this testimony. Plaintiff's expert wit nesses did not prescribe medical treatment nor attempt any diagnosis of the patient. Each of these witnesses had a sound nursing education and considerable experience and each was familiar with the specialized treatment and care that a nurse had to provide a patient. Each witness had also spent a considerable amount of time acting as a private nurse for Tanis Green and thus each was aware of the amount of time and effort that was needed to provide her with the proper level of nursing care. Because these nurses were familiar with nursing care and knew from experience how much time had to be expended in properly caring for Tanis Green, this Court does not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing them to testify that private nurses, who would be constantly on duty, were necessary to properly care for the patient. Although the defendant had doctors who testified that private nurses were not necessary in order to give reasonable care to Tanis Green, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and render a verdict.
Defendant's second contention of error is that John Vander Laan should not have been allowed to state that in his opinion Tanis Green would have stopped breathing if a private nurse had not been constantly on duty. It is this Court's opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing such testimony. The witness was a qualified registered nurse who had cared for the patient. He testified that she occasionally suffered from severe spasms and that on one occasion he had actually seen her turn blue because she had had trouble breathing. Based on this actual experience with the patient's breathing problems, this Court believes that the witness was qualified to give his opinion on whether the patient would have stopped breathing if a private duty nurse had not been present.
Defendant's final contention of error is that it was prejudiced when plaintiffs witnesses testified about the deaths of several other patients in the hospital. Defendant has attempted to draw our attention to one such instance by noting that there was "testimony that one person died". Defendant, however, has not stated who gave such testimony nor has it supplied this Court with any transcript reference so it could be easily located. As a result, it is this Court's opinion that defendant has waived any prejudice which this remark may have caused. See Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).
Defendant also argues that it was prejudiced when John Vander Laan testified about the death of one of his patients. Defendant did not object to this line of questioning and it is this Court's opinion that this issue has not been preserved for appeal.
The jury's verdict is affirmed.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.