Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #317674; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, Donofrio, and Gleicher; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of/Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a claimant’s request for attendant-care benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), the Court of Appeals held the claimant was not entitled to attendant-care benefits for his cognitive injuries because the injuries did not “arise out of” the motor vehicle accident.
Defendant insured suffered a traumatic brain injury in a 2003 car accident. When he was discharged from the hospital, it was noted that he was “walking, eating and carrying on most activities of daily living.” Months later, a psychologist diagnosed defendant with a mood disorder. For a period of time, defendant saw a physiatrist, who concluded that defendant had suffered a head injury in the accident and that he had reached the maximum amount of recovery for that head injury by 2010. Between 2004 and 2010, the numerous psychologists who examined defendant indicated that he had indeed suffered a head injury. Several of the psychologists also concluded that defendant displayed symptoms of schizophrenia, with one psychiatrist specifically reporting that defendant’s symptoms were not attributable to his head injury, but instead were due to his schizophrenia.
Plaintiff insurer brought this action 11 years after the accident, seeking a declaration that the treatment defendant received for his schizophrenia was not related to the motor vehicle accident and, therefore, it was not obligated to pay benefits. At this time, it was also discovered that defendant had a family history of schizophrenia. In a bench trial, the trial judge ruled there was no connection between the auto accident and defendant’s psychotic condition. “He suffers from schizophrenia, a pre-existing condition,” the trial judge held.
On appeal, defendant claimed the trial court erred in determining his psychotic condition was not related to the 2003 accident, and that he was entitled to benefits under §3105(1) and §3107(1)(a). The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that his injuries were not related to the accident. The court reasoned:
“[T]he dispositive question is whether defendant’s condition ‘arose out of’ the 2003 vehicle accident. … [T]here must be a relationship between the injury and the vehicular use of the motor vehicle. … We are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. The trial court’s finding was supported by expert testimony. … Further, as noted by several experts, defendant’s age was consistent with when someone starts to exhibit schizophrenia because if schizophrenia is going to manifest in a male, it manifests when the person is aged anywhere between his late teens and early-to-mid twenties.”
Defendant further argued the trial court improperly discounted the testimony of his expert witnesses. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying:
“[B]eing the fact-finder in this case, it was the trial court’s role to decide which evidence to afford more weight. … Thus, it was within the purview of the trial court to weigh the evidence and give more credence to certain witnesses over other ones. Here, the trial court gave more weight to plaintiff’s witnesses. We perceive no error. We stress that the standard of review for factual findings is for clear error, which is highly deferential. This standard does not allow a reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently. … Here, testimony contrary to the trial court’s finding was supplied by several of defendant’s witnesses. But after reviewing the record, we convinced that the trial court did not clearly err in discounting that testimony.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court placed too much emphasis on the fact that defendant’s uncle had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
