Jury finds for defense in wife's wage dispute

By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires

DETROIT - An Oakland County Circuit Court jury recently found in favor of an insurance company that was defending against a wife's claim that she deserved higher wages for care she was providing for her husband who was paralyzed in a car accident.

In Jeremy Good v. Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company, Pioneer was successful in proving that Cassandra Good was not entitled to Registered Nurse wages because she was trained to only take care of one person, her husband.

"She (Cassandra) is a remarkable woman and has done a fine job, but the training she got to take care of her husband was directed solely to take care of her husband," said Pioneer attorney Edward B. Davison of Gault Davison PC in Grand Blanc. "Training for an RN is far more extensive and everybody agreed, she did not have the qualifications of an RN."

Case background

Jeremy Good was involved in a car accident Oct. 19, 2015, and sustained injuries that rendered him a high-level quadriplegic.

After his discharge from the hospital, Good required two-person attendant care 24 hours per day.

While Good's wife consistently fulfilled one of those slots, Pioneer worked with a nursing agency to ensure that a second person was always on the clock.

Cassandra Good received training to be a high-tech aide for her husband and initially received $14 an hour from Pioneer for her work.

After some time, a nursing expert determined that Cassandra was performing work at the level of a licensed practical nurse (LPN) for an average of four hours per day, and deserved a higher wage. Pioneer then began paying Cassandra a blended rate of $15.40 an hour to reflect that for four hours a day, she should earn $22.40 per hour.

The dispute arose over the fact that Good's attending PM&R specialist wrote in his script for attendant care that if Cassandra Good was out of the home, she was to be replaced by an RN.

Pioneer paid a nursing agency $77.50 per hour to provide RN care.

The plaintiff's wife then claimed that she was essentially functioning like a staffing agency, and deserved a wage of $77.50 per hour.

After attempts at settlement failed, the case went to trial, where Pioneer succeeded in getting a no-cause verdict.

Case strategy

Davison said one key to the success of his defense was showing that Pioneer had given the plaintiff's wife one raise already and had attempted to settle.

"I think that had a significant impact on the jury. Every plaintiff likes to paint an insurance company as cold-hearted and deep-pocketed, and we're not going to pay a dime," Davison said. "When an insurance company steps up and actually pays what they feel they owe, a lot of that kind of attack by plaintiff's counsel is blunted."

Unanimity amongst all parties that Cassandra Good was not qualified as an RN also helped their case.

"There's a difference between being competent to take care of one specific patient as she was, and being qualified as a registered nurse," Davison said.

Attempts at settlement failed because the figure that the plaintiff requested was significantly higher than what the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association would reimburse Pioneer.

"That's what drives so many cases, the plaintiff wants too much and the defendant is not willing to pay enough," Davison said. "The parties could never find that magic amount that was low enough for the defendant to pay and high enough for the plaintiff to accept."

Juror dispute

Plaintiff's attorney Nicholas Andrews of Liss, Seder, & Andrews PC in Bloomfield Hills has filed a motion for a new trial because of something that occurred before this trial got going.

During jury selection, Andrews questioned a prospective juror if she could be fair to Andrews' client. The juror responded by saying she could feel a bias in her head already, and there was no guarantee that she would be able to set aside that bias during trial.

The following day, when questioned by defense counsel, the juror said that she could be fair to the plaintiff even if she believed that she wouldn't accept compensation if placed in the same situation.

The juror wound up being seated, and the court denied Andrews' motion to have her disqualified.

"She was directly asked if she could be fair to my client in this case. Her answer was 'I can't.' In fact, I believe she said that she didn't think she should be a juror in this trial," Andrews said. "I don't think she could've been clearer."

Andrews said other jurors had difficulty with the concept of the plaintiff's wife receiving compensation, but could set their personal feelings aside for the purposes of the trial.

"When jurors say they can't be fair, my belief is they should be removed right then and there, as opposed to being subject to further questions," Andrews said.

On the jury's ruling, Andrews expressed disappointment because of testimony from other nurses who said that Cassandra Good was the most skilled person in the household.

"One of them was in nursing school and said she learned more from Cassandra on how to care for a quadriplegic than she did in nursing school," Andrews said. "Cassandra was the lowest paid person, yet everyone who worked in that house looked to her for advice and guidance."

Published: Fri, Aug 31, 2018