## Facts

- Gwendolyn Rozier, a Jehovah’s Witness with end-stage renal disease, received a kidney transplant at St. John Hospital in August 2007.
- After discharge, Rozier returned with abdominal pain and complications suggesting transplant rejection; she was treated by multiple physicians associated with St. John and St. Clair entities.
- Antirejection therapy (plasmapheresis) carried a known risk of serious bleeding and potentially required blood products.
- Rozier and her husband informed providers that, for religious reasons, she would not accept whole blood or blood products, and she executed a written refusal.
- As her condition worsened, physicians determined a blood transfusion likely would save her life; Rozier refused.
- Physicians elected to remove the transplanted kidney as an alternative measure; Rozier died shortly after.
- The estate sued for medical malpractice and wrongful death, alleging negligent transplant and postoperative care caused the need for a transfusion and led to death.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of avoidable consequences (mitigation of damages) precludes wrongful-death damages when a decedent, for religious reasons, refused a blood transfusion that likely would have prevented death.
2. Whether applying a purely objective mitigation standard—without considering religious motivation—comports with First Amendment constraints requiring governmental neutrality toward religion.

## Decision

- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10), holding the doctrine of avoidable consequences barred recovery for death because refusing the transfusion was objectively unreasonable.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that, assuming a breach of the standard of care for purposes of the motion, Rozier’s death was a post-injury harm that could have been avoided by objectively reasonable mitigation.
- The court applied a purely objective, religion-neutral reasonable-person standard to avoid judicial evaluation of religious beliefs.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of avoidable consequences limits recoverable damages to those not reasonably avoidable after the defendant’s wrongful act; it requires reasonable post-injury mitigation efforts.
- In assessing mitigation where religious beliefs motivate a refusal of care, courts must use an objective reasonable-person standard to maintain First Amendment neutrality and avoid excessive entanglement with religion.
- Under an objective standard, refusal of a medically appropriate, necessary, likely life-saving treatment with no viable alternatives may be deemed unreasonable mitigation, barring damages attributable to the refusal (including death).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary disposition because, under an objective and religion-neutral application of the avoidable-consequences doctrine, the estate could not recover wrongful-death damages where the decedent refused a likely life-saving transfusion, rendering the death an avoidable post-injury consequence.


Braverman v. Granger, 303 Mich. App. 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)