WYANDOTTE HOSP V STERLING ROGERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WYANDOTTE HOSPITAL/HENRY FORD,
UNPUBLISHED
February 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 219930
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-804835-CZ
STERLING ROGERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Jansen and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the default judgment entered against defendant in the amount
of $9,000 in this action to collect unpaid medical bills. We affirm the entry of the default
judgment but vacate the damage award and remand.
Plaintiff filed the present action seeking recovery for unpaid medical bills in the amount
of $51,129.24. Defendant, believing that the expenses were covered by his medical insurance,
sought to require Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) to reconsider payment of certain amounts of
the unpaid bills. BCBS ultimately made partial payment in the amount of $24,036.92.
After BCBS made partial payment, the remaining balance was submitted to mediation.
Mediation resulted in an award in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $9,000. Plaintiff rejected
and defendant accepted mediation. However, subsequent to mediation BCBS reversed its
decision to make partial payment, and plaintiff sought recovery of the entire balance of
$51,129.24.
The court conducted a settlement conference at which it was disclosed to the court, at the
court’s request, that the amount of the mediation evaluation was $9,000. Two additional
settlement conferences were ultimately held, and defendant failed to appear at both conferences.1
At the final settlement conference, plaintiff requested a default judgment pursuant to MCR
2.401(G)(1) in the amount of $51,340.25.2 The court granted a default judgment for the amount
1
Defendant’s attorney attended the conferences, but raised no objection to entry of a default
judgment.
2
Plaintiff sought to recover the balance due of $51,129.24, plus court costs of $196 and statutory
(continued…)
-1-
of the mediation evaluation of $9,000.3 Plaintiff objected to the amount of the court’s proposed
judgment on the ground that plaintiff was being denied the opportunity to present evidence
regarding the amount of damages and was “being denied a trial . . . for his [defendant’s] failure to
appear.” The court thereafter took testimony of the individual responsible for billing at
Wyandotte Hospital. This individual testified that the amount due and owing by defendant was
$51,129.24. After taking this testimony, the court stated:
This case was mediated for nine thousand. The Court will grant a default
judgment for nine thousand dollars.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly considered the amount of the mediation
evaluation in determining damages and that the court failed to make adequate findings of fact and
conclusions of law to support the award of damages.
I
As a preliminary issue, we note that plaintiff relies, in part, on MCR 2.403(N)(4) in
support of its argument that the amount of the mediation evaluation was erroneously revealed to
the trial court. MCR 2.403(N)(4) provides:
The mediation clerk shall place a copy of the mediation evaluation and the
parties’ acceptances and rejections in a sealed envelope for filing with the clerk of
the court. In a nonjury action, the envelope may not be opened and the parties
may not reveal the amount of the evaluation until the judge has rendered
judgment. [Emphasis supplied.]
Under this rule, if the trial court is acting as the trier of fact, it may not open the envelope, and
the parties may not reveal the evaluation amount until after the judge has rendered judgment.
Schell v Baker Furniture Co, 232 Mich App 470, 480; 591 NW2d 349 (1998).
In the present case, however, defendant demanded a jury trial. The rule suppressing the
mediation evaluation applies only in nonjury actions. “If a jury has been demanded, the trial
court may review the mediation award before trial and continue settlement negotiations with the
parties.” 2 Dean, Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice, p 526. Hence, plaintiff’s reliance
on MCR 2.403(N)(4) is misplaced because the present action was a jury action.
II
The court granted a default judgment in favor of plaintiff under MCR 2401(G)(1), which
provides in part that “failure of a party or the party’s attorney to attend a scheduled conference, as
directed by the trial court, constitutes a default to which MCR 2.603 is applicable. . . ” MCR
(…continued)
costs of $15.
3
The propriety of entering a default judgment under these circumstances is not at issue in this
appeal.
-2-
2.603(B)(3)(a)(ii) provides that if it is necessary for the court to determine the amount of
damages in order to enter a default judgment or to carry it into effect, “the court may conduct
hearings or order references it deems necessary and proper, and shall accord a right of trial by
jury to the parties to the extent required by the constitution.”4
Here, the trial court clearly disregarded plaintiff’s unrebutted proofs on the issue of
damages and, instead, relied solely on the amount of the mediation evaluation in determining
damages. In Bennett v Medical Evaluation Specialists, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___
(Docket No. 213274, rel’d 12/26/00), slip op p 3, this Court noted that one of the main concerns
of the mediation rules, as evidenced by certain subsections of MCR 2.403, is judicial impartiality
where a mediated case proceeds to trial. The Court also noted that the implication of these
subsections is “that a trial judge with knowledge of a mediation award is disqualified from
further participation in the action.” See, e.g., MCR 2.403(D)(3) (a judge may be selected as a
member of the mediation panel, but may not preside at the trial of any action in which he or she
served as a mediator) and MCR 2.403(N)(2)(d) (a judge who hears a motion based on the
mediator’s determination that a party’s action or defense is frivolous under subrule (K)(4) is
precluded from presiding at a nonjury trial on the action). For obvious reasons,5 a judge who is
aware of the amount of a mediation evaluation is automatically disqualified from conducting a
bench trial in the action. 2 Dean, Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice, pp 526. Because
the hearing on the issue of damages was tantamount to a bench trial, the judge should not have
presided over the hearing on the issue of damages.
Accordingly, we set aside that part of the trial court's judgment that awards damages and
remand the matter to the trial court to conduct a jury trial on the issue of damages. If a jury trial
on the issue of damages is waived, a hearing on the issue of damages shall be conducted by a
different judge. Bennett, supra at slip op p 3.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
4
Plaintiff does not argue that it was entitled to a trial by jury. Hence, for the purpose of
analyzing the issue presented by plaintiff, we assume that the right to a jury trial was waived.
5
Such “obvious reasons” are apparent in the present case where the trial judge completely
disregarded plaintiff’s unrefuted evidence on the issue of damages and stated that it would enter
judgment in the amount of the mediation evaluation.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
