Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 324723; Unpublished
Judges Ronayne Krause, Gadola, and O’Brien; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had to post a security bond for costs, because plaintiff had a history of accident-related injuries and there was insufficient evidence the accident at issue had exacerbated any prior injuries that plaintiff allegedly sustained.
Plaintiff in this case claimed he was injured when he was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant. Since 1992, plaintiff had sustained injuries due to various accidents involving work, motor vehicles, and slips and falls. After the accident with defendant, plaintiff was taken to the hospital, and testing did not show any new or exacerbated injury. Plaintiff then filed this negligence action against defendant, as well a claim against State Farm for first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant and State Farm both filed motions seeking a security bond for costs, claiming that plaintiff could not show the accident with defendant exacerbated his alleged pre-existing injuries. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions, denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and dismissed the case because plaintiff failed to post the bonds.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s claims were properly dismissed. In so finding, the court said:
“[P]laintiff allegedly suffered injury from the August 2012 automobile accident. However, plaintiff does not dispute the documentary evidence submitted by defendants. After the August 2012 accident, the medical testing did not reveal the presence of any new or exacerbation of an existing injury. Further, the evidence established that plaintiff had a history of vehicle or personal injuries and a history of seeking pain medications. … Plaintiff claimed disability and the need for services from family members for basic needs including dressing and chores, yet plaintiff was able to physically assault his wife. Furthermore, plaintiff’s complaints of pain were inconsistent with his presentation at and departure from the IME. The extensive medical evidence contradicted the meritorious nature and legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims. … In light of the record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering plaintiff to post a bond for security for costs.”
The Court of Appeals further held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The court said:
“Plaintiff attempted to refute the contention that his claims were groundless and unwarranted by submitting an affidavit from Dr. Soo that was not signed or notarized. Irrespective of whether a signed copy was filed, Dr. Soo acknowledged that the condition for which he performed surgery on plaintiff existed in 2011, before the accident in 2012. Nonetheless, he opined that the August 31, 2012 auto accident ‘may have exacerbated a pre-existing condition.’ … Thus, the Dr. Soo affidavit failed to create a factual issue regarding the merits of plaintiff’s litigation. The appropriate remedy for failing to post a security bond as ordered is dismissal. … In light of the failure to submit the bond as ordered, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.”
