Home Healthcare Company may be on the hook for failing to monitor decedent’s blood sugar- even

State Bar of Michigan E-Journal Number #58027

Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Estate of Richard v. Compassionate Care Home Health Serv.

The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for the defendant-in-home care provider in the plaintiff-estate’s negligence claim. Defendant was hired to provide in-home care for plaintiff’s decedent, including monitoring his blood sugar. Over the course of a few days, defendant noticed that plaintiff’s decedent appeared tired, and eventually in need of medical attention. Shortly thereafter, he died as a result of a diabetic coma. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence, alleging it breached its duty by failing to monitor his blood sugar, and by failing to recognize the early symptoms of a diabetic coma. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding it only had a limited duty to perform basic household services, which did not include monitoring his blood sugar or recognizing that sleepiness indicates a diabetic coma. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in determining that defendant did not have a duty to plaintiff’s decedent to monitor his blood sugar or recognize the early symptoms of a diabetic coma. It found that the record showed that defendant was hired to provide basic household services, and the only evidence of a “formal” relationship with the decedent indicated that defendant’s relationship with him was limited to non-medical services. “Thus, defendant did not have an obligation arising out of a special relationship that required defendant to provide decedent with specialized medical services for Type I diabetic. For the same reason, defendant did not have a duty arising out of a special relationship to provide its employees with the specific medical training necessary to recognize an approaching diabetic coma.” However, noting that the daily care logs showed that defendant voluntarily assumed the duty to monitor decedent’s blood sugar levels and was actually performing this duty consistently, it concluded that defendant had a limited duty. “Given the evidence presented, we conclude that defendant voluntarily assumed the duty to monitor decedent’s blood sugar levels, or at least to ensure that decedent monitored them himself, the breach of which was arguably a proximate cause of decedent’s death.”

Click here for full text opinion.


Recent Posts

See All

Protect Yourself!

Michigan law allows anyone to petition the court for a Personal Protection Order (PPO). The petitioner must explain how the respondent’s behavior: (1) serves no legitimate purpose or (2) meets the leg

Don’t Lose Your License or Your Car!

Far too often people get parking or moving/traffic tickets and decide they will “fight the ticket” or just pay it at some future date. However, the matter gets lost in the hustle and bustle of our eve


Choosing the right business structure is critical. It is also very PERSONAL. There are liability, compliance and tax considerations that must be contemplated when making this choice. This is why you s

  • GLLG Facebook
  • GLLG Twitter
  • GLLG Instagram
  • GLLG LinkedIn
  • GLLG YouTube

One Towne Square, Ste 1835, Southfield, MI 48076  |   (888) 478-5253

© 2021 by Great Lakes Legal Group, PLLC