Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 142220; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Reilly, and Joslyn; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion arising out of an action for first-party coverage, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an appeal concerning several evidentiary issues.
First, plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an exhibit pertaining to a medical evaluation performed to determine plaintiff’s eligibility for social security disability benefits on the grounds that the evaluation contained hearsay statements. However, the Court of Appeals noted that a portion of the exhibit had been included in one of plaintiff’s exhibits. Furthermore, the court found no error in the trial court reading to the jury the wording of a federal regulation referenced in the disputed exhibit so that the jurors could evaluate the comments in context.
Plaintiff also appealed the admission of evidence relating to payment to him of Social Security disability benefits. Plaintif’s counsel had brought a motion in limine regarding the evidence which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had waived any claim of error because objections were not made when the evidence came in at trial.
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting evidence of plaintiff’s potential layoff to reach the jury, when the patties had previously stipulated that the evidence could be admitted in relation to the issue of plaintiff’s motive to claim disability and where plaintiff’s counsel had raised the issue of potential layoff during direct examination of plaintiff.
With regard to defendant's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for additur, where evidence was presented that plaintiff would have received a cost of living allowance in addition to his hourly wage. Finally, both parties appealed the trial court's ruling on the issue of costs and attorney fees. However, the order from which the appeal was taken made no reference to costs or attorney fees and, therefore, the Court of Appeals declined to rule on the issue.
