Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 346182; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Swartzle, and Cameron; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Persons Disqualified from Receiving Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§500.3173a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff, Elijah Woody, committed fraud by failing to disclose in his interrogatories that he had been involved in another motor vehicle collision after the one at issue in this case, and was therefore ineligible for no-fault PIP benefits through the MAIPF pursuant to MCL 500.3173a(2).
Woody was injured in a pedestrian-versus-motor vehicle collision in 2005, and filed three separate lawsuits against Auto Club Insurance Association (AAA) over the next twelve years, the third of which is at issue in this appeal. While discovery was ongoing in the third lawsuit, in May 2017, Woody was injured in another motor vehicle collision, and sought PIP benefits through the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility. Several months later, in his August 2017 signed answer to AAA’s interrogatories, Woody denied involvement in any car crash after the one in 2005, prompting AAA to move for summary disposition, arguing that Woody committed a fraudulent act under MCL 500.3173a(2), which rendered him ineligible for benefits through the MAIPF. The trial court agreed, and granted AAA’s motion for summary disposition.
On appeal, Woody argued that a question of fact existed as to whether he knowingly made fraudulent statements in light of his cognitive and memory deficits. Additionally, Woody argued that his misstatement in his interrogatory answer was not material because the injuries he suffered in the May 2017 crash were unrelated to the brain injury he suffered in the 2005 crash. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments, finding firstly that Woody presented no evidence that his cognitive and memory deficits affected his ability to understand the interrogatory questions.
Plaintiff argues that the issue whether he knew that the information he provided was false should have been submitted to the jury. Plaintiff notes that he has difficulties with memory and cognitive deficits, and his answers at the deposition clearly show his inability to recall, lack of knowledge, and confusion as to the questions presented. According to plaintiff, the totality of the circumstances created a question regarding his credibility that was solely within the province of the jury to answer, and thus inappropriate for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). There is evidence in the record that plaintiff had memory problems and a brain injury caused by the 2005 accident. Yet, in the absence of evidence indicating that plaintiff’s memory loss affected his ability to understand that the forms he signed contained false statements, it is speculative to conclude that his memory issues caused him to fail to realize or appreciate that the answers he signed contained materially false statements. See West, 469 Mich at 186-188. Furthermore, plaintiff did not assert, at any point during the proceeding, that he was incompetent to bring this case or testify in support of this case.
The Court of Appeals next ruled that Woody’s involvement in the May 2017 crash was material to his claim because it was “reasonably related to [AAA’s] investigations of whether treatments underwent by [Woody] were reasonably necessary for his care, rehabilitation, and recovery from the 2005 accident,” or whether they were related to the injuries he sustained in the 2017 crash.
