Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #294472; Unpublished
Judges Saad, K.F. Kelly, and Donofrio; unanimous: per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses: Incurred Expense Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition ruling in favor of plaintiff that the defendant was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether plaintiff’s injuries were related to the subject automobile accident, as well as the court’s order that defendant pay plaintiff the estimated amounts she would incur to purchase two wheelchair lifts and a handicap van, plaintiff’s attorney fees and penalty interest.
In reversing the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was collaterally estopped from litigating whether plaintiff’s injuries were related to the subject automobile accident, the Court of Appeals recognized that the previous litigation between the two parties was resolved through arbitration, which resulted in an award for the plaintiff, but contained no factual determinations, especially regarding the causal connection between the automobile accident and any of the expenses the plaintiff was claiming as no-fault benefits. In this regard, the Court specifically held:
“We hold that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition to plaintiff. For purposes of collateral estoppel, the arbitration award contains no factual determinations. Accordingly, there is no “valid and final judgment” on an essential question of fact. Moreover, the award is specifically limited to plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits up to December 22, 2004. Thus, there is no showing that the arbitration panel resolved the question of whether there is a causal connection between the automobile accident and any expenses at issue after the panel rendered its decision. As one example, the arbitration panel did not make a factual finding that the eventual paralysis that confined plaintiff to a wheelchair that was allegedly caused by transverse myelitis was in any way related to the automobile accident. The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies only when the ultimate issue to be determined in the subsequent action is “identical, and not merely similar” to the issue involved in the previous action. Eaton Co Rd Commr’s v Schultz, 205 Mich App 371, 377; 521 NW2d 847 (1994). Further, the record reflects that questions of fact remain in dispute about whether plaintiff’s requested benefits constitute reasonable expenses for reasonably necessary products.”
The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s order that defendant pay the estimated costs for plaintiff’s wheelchair lift and handicap-accessible van. The Court held that the expenses were not incurred, and, therefore, the Court erred in ordering the defendant to pay these expenses and also erred in awarding plaintiff attorney fees and penalty interest.
