Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JUDITH BURKHARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED January 22, 1999

No. 197988 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 94-434092 NZ

Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and MacKenzie and Murphy, JJ. PER CURIAM. We concur with the result reached by our colleague in his concurring/dissenting opinion except for his conclusion that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's unlawful retaliation claim. We reverse the trial court's decision to direct a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation and remand this case for a new trial on that claim. In order to avoid a directed verdict, the nonmoving party must present evidence sufficient for the trial court to find that a prima facie case was established. Locke v Pachtman, 446 Mich 216, 223; 521 NW2d 786 (1994). In deciding whether to grant a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must view the evidence and all legitimate inferences arising from the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. A motion for a directed verdict should be granted only when no factual question exists upon which reasonable minds could differ. Alar v Mercy Hosp, 208 Mich App 518, 524; 529 NW2d 318 (1995). We review a trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict de novo. Meagher v Wayne State Univ , 222 Mich App 700, 708; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). To establish a claim of unlawful retaliation under

Download JUDITH BURKHARDT V BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN.pdf

Michigan Law