Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97846; Published
Judges Holbrook, Hood, and N. J. Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 171 Mich App 622; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that plaintiff, in a third-party tort action for personal injuries, could not preclude the taking of the deposition of a physician who examined plaintiff on behalf of plaintiff’s own no-fault insurance carrier.
The Court of Appeals upheld the denial by the trial court of a protective order sought by plaintiff on the basis of physician-patient privilege.
Since the physician's examination was conducted at the request of plaintiff’s no-fault insurance carrier, who was a potential adversary in view of the possibility that plaintiffs claim for benefits could have been disputed, the Court of Appeals held that such circumstances could not have induced plaintiff to repose confidence in the physician and to expect confidentiality from information obtained from the examination. Since medical diagnosis or advice were not being sought in this examination, the policy of encouraging confidential communication between physician and patient as contained in MCLA 600.2157 were not applicable.
Since the trial court had granted summary disposition on the serious impairment issue, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for reconsideration in light of DiFranco.
