Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #270851; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Murray, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Causation Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for defendant State Farm on plaintiff’s claim for attendant care benefits, finding that she presented sufficient evidence that her dementia which necessitated the attendant care, was related to the closed head injury she sustained in an automobile accident 10 years earlier.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a closed head injury in a motor vehicle accident which occurred in 1995. This injury necessitated surgery to the right temporal region and to the frontal and occipital regions. In 2005, plaintiff filed this action for attendant care benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) stating it was necessary because of her closed head injuries. Defendant moved for summary disposition claiming plaintiff’s current condition was unrelated to the motor vehicle accident. The trial court agreed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that the testimony of plaintiff’s physicians, who opined that her present cognitive impairments were related to the motor vehicle accident, was sufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury. In this regard, the court stated:
“When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there is a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff needed attendant care during the one-year period before the complaint was filed, and whether any need for attendant care was caused by the 1995 accident. Dr. Amberg’s opinions changed throughout the three dates he was deposed. Ultimately, after reviewing hospital records concerning the accident that showed injuries to the areas of plaintiff’s brain that correlated with impairments shown by neuropsychological testing, he believed that plaintiff’s incapacity to function was related to the accident, assuming that her account that she was unable to function following the accident was accurate. Dr. Bleiberg prescribed attendant care and related the need to neuropsychological impairment. Based on Dr. Amberg’s evaluation, he linked plaintiff’s dementia to head trauma. Dr. Faremouth opined in a letter that plaintiff’s ‘rapid decline [in cognitive functioning] is related to the brain injury suffered ten years ago.’ Although he had not prescribed attendant care, he indicated in his deposition that he would have done so if plaintiff’s companion were not there to organize her medicine and help her.”
