Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 348030; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, O’Brien, and Swartzle; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)**]
Causation Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident involving defendant. In doing so, the Court noted that plaintiff failed to establish an objective impairment and demonstrate causation.
This case arose from a motor vehicle collision involving plaintiff and defendant. Prior to this accident, plaintiff had been involved in two other, separate motor vehicles collisions, neither of which involved defendant. Following the third accident involving defendant, at the request of plaintiff’s insurance provider, and independent medical examination (IME) was conducted which concluded that “plaintiff did not suffer any injuries as a result of the third collision. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages for negligence arising out of the third collision. In turn, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was barred from recovering noneconomic damages because he had failed to establish that he sustained a “serious impairment of body function.” In response, plaintiff submitted results of his treatment after the second collision, but failed to include any documentation for diagnoses or medical treatment received after the third collision. The trial court concluded that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate an objectively manifested impairment from the third collision and therefore granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, stating he had accidentally attached the records and testimony from a previous accident, and attached several documents detailing the medical treatment received after the third collision which he argued indicated that he had suffered an objective manifestation of impairment. The trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, plaintiff first argued that the trial court “erred in finding that there was no material factual dispute such that summary disposition as a matter of law was appropriate.” In evaluating this argument, the Michigan Court of Appeals noted that the pertinent question before the court was “whether a dispute existed as to ‘the nature and extent of the person’s injuries,’” not “whether the plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident at issue.” The Court noted that the parties did not dispute that plaintiff was injured as a result of the third collision, but rather, disagreed only to the extent that the third collision caused the injuries. Thus, the Court found that “there was no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries and the trial court properly concluded that the matter was a question of law.” Next, plaintiff contended that he demonstrated an injury “sufficient to satisfy the tort liability threshold for a serious impairment of body function.” In evaluating this claim, the Court noted that an impairment is objectively manifested when it is “evidence by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function,” and that a plaintiff must “also prove that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of his injuries.” Plaintiff asserted that he met this burden by presenting evidence of his deposition testimony, medical records from a medical clinic documenting three visits following the third collision, and the IME report. The Court disagreed, finding that “[a]lthough plaintiff’s medical records documenting his injuries . . . constitute objective observations of injury experienced by the plaintiff after the collision, the records do not specify whether those injured were caused by the third collision.” Thus, the Court concluded that the plaintiff “failed to establish an objective impairment and demonstrate causation;” therefore, the trial court had not erred by granting summary disposition.
