- Call 24/7 (800) 525-6386 Tap Here to Call Us
How a Michigan Jury’s Pain and Suffering Award Shrinks
A verdict figure and a judgment figure are different numbers in Michigan, and the distance between them is set by statute rather than by negotiation. A jury returns an amount for pain and suffering, and a separate provision then tells the court how to convert that amount into an enforceable judgment.
MCL 600.6306 governs the conversion in every personal injury action other than medical malpractice. It sets the order in which damages are entered, requires future damages to be reduced to present value, and applies the injured person’s share of fault to the total.
The Order the Statute Requires
Judgment is entered against each defendant, including a third-party defendant, in a sequence the statute lists. Past economic damages come first, less collateral source payments under MCL 600.6303. Past noneconomic damages come second and are entered as found.
Future damages follow, and each future category is reduced. Future economic damages are entered less health care costs and collectible collateral source payments, reduced to gross present cash value. Future medical and other health care costs are reduced to gross present cash value. Future noneconomic damages are reduced the same way.
Taxable and allowable costs come last, including interest as permitted by MCL 600.6013 or 600.6455. The sequence matters because reductions attach to particular categories rather than to the award as a whole, and because costs and interest are entered at the end of that sequence rather than alongside the damages they follow.
Judgment is entered against each defendant separately under this scheme, third-party defendants included, so a verdict against multiple parties is not simply one number owed jointly in the form the jury wrote it.
Five Percent a Year, Compounded
Gross present cash value is defined in the same section. It means the total amount of future damages reduced to present value at a rate of 5% per year, compounded annually, for each year in which those damages will accrue, as found by the trier of fact.
The consequence for a young, seriously injured plaintiff is substantial. Pain and suffering projected across decades is discounted at a compounding rate for every one of those years, so the further out a loss extends, the less each future year contributes to the judgment.
Past noneconomic damages are not discounted. That difference makes the allocation between past and future a real question at trial rather than a bookkeeping detail, because the same total split differently produces different judgments.
Then Comparative Fault Applies to the Total
Where the plaintiff was assigned a percentage of fault under MCL 600.6304, the total judgment amount is reduced by that percentage, subject to MCL 600.2959. The court then determines the ratio of total past damages to total future damages and allocates the deduction proportionally between them.
MCL 600.2959 supplies the ceiling that the molding provision defers to. Its comparison is not to a flat majority but to everyone else combined, parties and non-parties alike, and crossing that line removes the noneconomic award entirely while leaving a proportionally reduced economic recovery in place.
Allocated fault therefore does two things to a pain and suffering award. Below the line it reduces it proportionally. Above the line it eliminates it, while leaving a reduced economic recovery in place.
Malpractice Is Molded Under a Different Provision
MCL 600.6306 applies to a personal injury action other than an action for medical malpractice, and that carve-out is written into its first sentence. A malpractice verdict is converted under MCL 600.6306a instead, which MCL 600.2959 identifies as the alternative where it applies.
The practical point for anyone comparing outcomes is that a malpractice verdict and an auto verdict of the same size are not the same judgment. They are processed under different sections, and a figure quoted from one context does not transfer to the other.
Collateral source treatment is part of the same machinery. Past economic damages are entered less collateral source payments under MCL 600.6303, and future economic damages less those determined collectible under MCL 600.6303(5), so what an injured person’s own insurance already paid affects the judgment rather than the verdict.
Why the Threshold Question Comes First
None of this arithmetic is reached unless the claim clears the tort threshold. Noneconomic damages are available against an at-fault driver only where the injured person suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement under MCL 500.3135(1).
Two consequences follow for how a case is prepared. Evidence about how an injury changed a person’s life carries the threshold and also sizes the award, so it does double work. And evidence that sorts past from future loss affects the judgment independently of the total the jury writes down.
Our Michigan personal injury attorneys build both records from the outset, because neither can be assembled after a verdict. The comparative fault rules that reduce an award are argued from the same facts that establish it.
The 5% compounding rate is the figure most people have never heard and the one that moves a large award the most. It is worth understanding before a number is discussed. We talk these questions through with you. Call us at (800) 525-6386.
What an Award Is Worth After the Statute Applies
A settlement figure is only comparable to a verdict figure once the statutory reductions are accounted for, and that comparison is the one that should drive a decision. We represent injured people at Neumann Law Group throughout Michigan, including Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Detroit. If you would like us to look at your situation, call (800) 525-6386 or contact us through our website.