Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 336255; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Servitto, and Boonstra; per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Causation Issues [§3135]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition for Defendant City of Ann Arbor (“Ann Arbor”) regarding the issue of causation. The Court reversed the denial of summary disposition because it found that Plaintiff Nawal Hatoum (“Hatoum”) failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish a casual nexus between her injury and the motor vehicle accident she was involved in.
Hatoum was involved in a collision with a street sweeper owned by Ann Arbor, and operated by Patrick Stacy,[1] an employee of Ann Arbor. Hatoum alleged that she suffered serious impairment of body function to her head, back, hip, and neck. Hatoum had previously suffered similar injuries. Ann Arbor asserted governmental immunity as a defense and claimed that Hatoum could not establish the causation requirement under MCL 500.3135. Hatoum argued that Ann Arbor was liable under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity and that her injuries arose out of the injury from the street sweeper. Ann Arbor moved for summary disposition and the trial court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and found that Hatoum failed to establish the necessary casual nexus between her injuries and the accident. The Court explained that third-party negligence claims and governmental immunity claims are read harmoniously in cases where both are at issue. Governmental immunity requires that the physical injury “resulted from” the motor vehicle accident. Here, Hatoum argued that she suffered head, back, hip, and neck injuries from the collision. However, Ann Arbor provided evidence that many of Hatoum’s injuries predated the accident. Hatoum’s evidence failed to link her injuries to the collision. The medical records indicating that she suffered head injuries contained no information linking the collision to the head injuries. Her MRIs purported to show a difference in brain pre- and post-accident, but again there was no medical opinion linking the change to the accident. The Court explained that a temporal relationship was not enough to establish a question of material fact. The opinion of Dr. Max Karl Newman explained that Hatoum suffered injuries after her collision, but again it failed to link the two. The Court therefore found that an insufficient link existed between the accident and the injuries and Hatoum was barred by governmental immunity from bringing her claim.
“In response, plaintiff failed to present evidence demonstrating that these preexisting conditions were exacerbated by the June 3, 2015 collision, or that she suffered additional injuries as a result of the collision. Medical records, attached to her response below and her brief on appeal,[] indicate that following the collision, she was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and a traumatic brain injury, but she produced no affidavits or testimony from the doctors linking the injuries to the June 3, 2015 collision.11 Demonstrating a temporal relationship alone is generally insufficient to establish a question of fact regarding causation. See Craig ex rel Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 93; 684 NW2d 296 (2004)”
Thus, the Court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition for Ann Arbor.
[1] Stacy was removed from Hatoum’s amended complaint.
