Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #235566; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Gage and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for no-fault PIP benefits, including a claim for a portion of the cost of a swimming pool, where plaintiff had failed to comply with discovery requests seeking signed authorizations to obtain medical and disability benefit information concerning plaintiff’s preexisting conditions.
Plaintiff was involved in a single-car rollover accident, and as a result, complained of a number of injuries including back pain. Plaintiff also had a number of preexisting conditions at the time of the accident, including previous back problems. She had been disabled from her employment as a physician since 1994 due to gastrointestinal problems.
Auto Owners submitted interrogatories to the plaintiff seeking signed authorizations to obtain medical and disability benefit information concerning her preexisting conditions. A court order was issued compelling discovery, with which the plaintiff failed to comply. The trial court then granted defendant’s motion in limine to prevent plaintiff from presenting causation evidence due to the discovery order violation, and the case was dismissed.
The Court of Appeals, in upholding dismissal of the action, held that a trial court is authorized by MCR 2.313(B)(2)(c) to dismiss a proceeding where a party fails to obey a discovery order. In this case, the trial court was authorized to issue the severe sanction of dismissal, where a plaintiff’s violation was “willful.” The releases were simple matters and plaintiff was given several opportunities to provide them.
The Court of Appeals also upheld the grant of partial summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement for part of the expense of building a $300,000 swimming pool. The court stated that plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the question of whether or not the medical expense is reasonable within the meaning of section 3107(a). While this question is generally one for the jury, the trial court may resolve the issue as a matter of law where the conclusion is certain. In the instant case, the evidence showed that plaintiff could receive similar benefits from alternative treatment, and therefore, the trial court properly found that the pool expense was not reasonably necessary.
