Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 93950; Published
Judges Wahls, Sullivan, and Balkwill; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 168 Mich App 1; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Wahls deals with a plaintiff’s claim for no-fault work loss benefits as a result of a heart attack that plaintiff contended was causally related to a motor vehicle accident The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant but on different grounds.
The court held that the trial judge was in error in ruling that the plaintiff must show that the heart attack was "directly traceable" or the "direct result" of the motor vehicle accident. On the contrary plaintiff need only show that the heart attack constituted an injury "arising out of" the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle [see §3105(1)]. The "arising out of" standard requires a lessor degree of causation than what the trial court ruled was necessary.
However, even under the less demanding "arising out of" standard, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. In so holding, the court assessed the plaintiff’s claim in the following language:
"Whether an injury may be characterized as 'arising out of the use of a motor vehicle for purposes of no-fault personal protection benefits and thus is based on a relationship with the use of the motor vehicle which is more than merely incidental, fortuitous or but for with that uses — or put differently is not so remote or attenuated as to preclude a finding that it arose out of the use of a motor vehicle — is a determination which depends on the unique facts of each case, and thus must be made on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, the facts reveal that plaintiff’s parentage habits and preexisting physical condition clearly predisposed him to the heart attack which occurred almost three months after his truck accident He acknowledged, among other things being overweight; having smoked heavily for 30 years; having parents who died of causes related to heart disease; having suffered from angina since 1980; and having high blood pressure since 1977. In view of these circumstances, we find little indeed to support plaintiff’s assertion that his heart attack was caused by his use of the truck during his March 2, 1982 accident . . . .Moreover, we have been presented with no persuasive
Reason - - nor do we independently perceive one — for prohibiting a trial court from considering the length of time, in cases such as this, between the accident and the injury when faced with the often complex issue of apprehending the causative link, if any, between two such events. It is only logical to conclude that, as the period of time between accident and injury increases, so likewise may increase the number of possible other causes for the injury sustained. Therefore, the trial court's consideration of the time period between plaintiff’s accident and his heart attack, such period being almost three months, was not erroneous, particularly in view of the expert medical testimony that plaintiff’s heart attack would probably have been related to his accident only if the attack had been suffered within an hour or so of the accident."
