NELSON PO V CLARITA PO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NELSON PO,
UNPUBLISHED
June 18, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 229473
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-918242-NI
CLARITA PO,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Smolenski and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by right from a jury verdict of no cause of action in this negligence suit.
We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by admitting a statement contained in
plaintiff’s medical records that was unnecessary for diagnosis or treatment of his injuries. See
MRE 803(4). However, plaintiff moved to admit the medical records at trial and did not seek to
redact the statement at issue. A party may not seek redress on appeal for alleged error to which
he contributed by plan or negligence. Farm Credit Services v Weldon, 232 Mich App 662, 683684; 591 NW2d 438 (1998). Plaintiff waived review of the admission of this evidence because
he introduced it. See generally City of Troy v McMaster, 154 Mich App 564, 570-571; 398
NW2d 469 (1986).
Next, plaintiff argues that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff also waived appellate review of this issue by failing to raise it in a motion for a new trial
before the trial court,1 Rickwalt v Richfield Lakes Corp, 246 Mich App 450, 464; 633 NW2d 418
(2001), and we discern no miscarriage of justice warranting further action.
1
Plaintiff contends on appeal that a motion for a new trial was not filed because his trial counsel
terminated representation after the trial. Plaintiff does not support this contention by any
references to the record, and we note that a party may not enlarge the factual record on appeal.
See Wiand v Wiand, 178 Mich App 137, 143; 443 NW2d 464 (1989). At any rate, the alleged
termination did not excuse plaintiff’s failure to preserve the issue.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
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.
