Milnikel v. Mercy-Memorial Medical Center, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 113897,MERCY-MEMORIAL |
| Citation | 454 N.W.2d 132,183 Mich.App. 221,53 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 908 |
| Parties | Herbert MILNIKEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 183 Mich.App. 221, 454 N.W.2d 132, 53 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 908, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,398 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[183 MICHAPP 222] Conybeare Law Office, P.C., St. Joseph, by Bruce C. Conybeare and John C. Johnson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mary Ann Pater, St. Joseph, for defendant-appellee.
Before MAHER, P.J., and HOLBROOK and SAWYER, JJ.
Plaintiff filed an action against defendant alleging a violation of the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act (HCRA), M.C.L. Sec. 37.1101 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.550(101) et seq. Thereafter, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint in order to add a loss of consortium claim in the name of his spouse. Plaintiff's request was denied by the trial court. We reverse.
MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. This rule was designed to facilitate the amendment of pleadings except where prejudice to the opposing party would result. Ben P. Fyke & Sons v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649, 656, 213 N.W.2d 134 (1973); Feliciano v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 158 Mich.App. 497, 501, 405 N.W.2d 178 (1987). The grant or denial of a motion to amend is within the discretion of the trial court. McManus v. St. Joseph Hosp. Corp., 167 Mich.App. 432, 437, 423 N.W.2d 217 (1987).
In denying plaintiff's motion to amend, the trial court indicated its decision was not based upon any finding of prejudice to defendant. Instead, the court concluded that a claim for loss of consortium was not available in conjunction with a claim brought under the HCRA.
[183 MICHAPP 223] Plaintiff argues that our Supreme Court's recent decision in Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 431 Mich. 26, 427 N.W.2d 488 (1988), which found that a derivative claim for loss of consortium was not precluded under the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. Sec. 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(101) et seq., requires a similar conclusion with respect to his HCRA claim. We agree.
In Eide, supra, our Supreme Court examined the Civil Rights Act in order to determine whether a claim for loss of consortium would be permitted in conjunction with a separate claim alleging a violation of the act. The Court began by noting that Michigan has long recognized a cause of action for loss of consortium in favor of spouses. Eide, p. 29, 427 N.W.2d 488. Thus, the Court viewed the question as not whether a cause of action is available under the Civil Rights Act, but whether there was anything within the act precluding such a claim.
The Court examined the enforcement provision of the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. Sec. 37.2801(1); M.S.A. Sec. 3.548(801)(1), which is identical to that of the HCRA, M.C.L. Sec. 37.1606(1); M.S.A. Sec. 3.550(606)(1):
(1) A person alleging a violation of this act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages, or both.
Acting upon its earlier notation that loss of consortium claims have been long recognized in Michigan, the Eide Court found nothing to suggest a legislative intent to preclude such an action under the act.
The HCRA has the same purposes and goals as the Civil Rights Act. It was designed to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies and customs with respect to employment, public accommodations, services, educational institutions and housing.
That claims under the HCRA should be treated [183 MICHAPP 224] similarly to those under the Civil Rights Act is apparent from Sec. 605 of the HCRA, expressly requiring that HCRA claims be subject to the same procedures as a complaint alleging a violation of the Civil Rights Act. M.C.L. Sec. 37.1605; M.S.A. Sec. 3.550(605).
Further, the HCRA, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc.
...49, 101 N.W.2d 227 (1960); Berryman v. K Mart Corp., 193 Mich.App. 88, 94-95, 483 N.W.2d 642 (1992); Milnikel v. Mercy-Mem Med. Ctr., Inc., 183 Mich.App. 221, 223, 454 N.W.2d 132 (1989) ("Michigan has long recognized a cause of action for loss of consortium in favor of spouses."). As the Be......
-
Schindewolf v. City of Brighton
...only in association with the PWDCRA claim, and is barred by governmental immunity. Plaintiffs rely on Milnikel v. Mercy–Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 183 Mich.App. 221, 454 N.W.2d 132, 134 (1989) to argue that Mrs. Schindewolf's loss of consortium claim is not barred by governmental immunity under......
-
Burchett v. Rx Optical, Docket No. 196681
...Court has held that claims under the HCRA should be treated similarly to those under the CRA. Milnikel v. Mercy-Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 183 Mich.App. 221, 223-224, 454 N.W.2d 132 (1989). Further, the civil enforcement provision of the HCRA is identical to that of the CRA. See M.C.L. ......
-
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus
...purposes and goals as the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq.; Milnikel v. Mercy-Memorial Medical Ctr., Inc., 183 Mich.App. 221, 223-224, 454 N.W.2d 132 (1989), we conclude that the reasoning set forth in DeFlaviis and McLemore with respect to the retaliation ......