Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325186; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Cavanagh and Ronayne Krause; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a reimbursement claim brought by an attendant-care provider, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was improperly granted to defendant-insurer because the evidence presented established an issue about whether the insured’s injuries “arose out of” the use of his motor vehicle as a motor vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3105(1).
Plaintiff provided attendant-care services to Curtis Gilkey. While driving a motor vehicle, Gilkey was inflicted with a paralyzing spinal cord injury from a gunshot wound. Once inflicted with the gunshot wound, Gilkey crashed his vehicle into a building at a high rate of speed and sustained a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against defendant Bristol West Insurance, the applicable no-fault insurer, for attendant-care services it had provided Gilkey from August 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014. Bristol West did not dispute the nature of Gilkey’s injuries or his need for attendant care. Rather, Bristol West claimed it was not obligated to reimburse plaintiff because Gilkey’s need for attendant care was solely related to the gunshot injury to his spine and did not “aris[e] out of the … use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” under §3105(1). The trial court granted summary disposition for Bristol West. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals held, among other things, that there was an adequate question of fact regarding whether Gilkey’s need for attendant-care services arose from his brain injury that was clearly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, independent of his spinal cord injury from the gunshot wound.
In so holding, the Court pointed to the doctors’ reports presented by both parties. The Court also noted that, on appeal, Bristol West claimed that Gilkey’s brain injury did not satisfy the §3105(1) “arising out of” requirement because, like the spine injury, it was precipitated by the gunshot.
The primary issue on appeal, the Court of Appeals explained, was whether Gilkey’s attendant care was necessitated by only his paraplegia due to the spinal cord injury caused by the gunshot, or whether his brain injury also contributed to his need for attendant-care services.
Addressing this issue, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in disregarding medical reports presented by one of plaintiff’s doctors, Dr. Weiss, based on the rationale that Dr. Weiss had not treated Gilkey on an ongoing basis. The trial court’s reasoning was “wholly inappropriate” for summary disposition purposes, the Court said, because circumstantial evidence and inferences are proper and “mandatory at this stage.” The Court further said the reports were improperly disregarded based on the rationale that they did not address the relevant time period. According to the Court, the reports offered “inferential evidence” sufficient to create an issue as to whether Gilkey needed attendant care because of his brain injury, independent of his spine injury.
Regarding the brain injury that Gilkey sustained when his vehicle crashed into the building, the Court of Appeals said it was “patently obvious” this injury arose out of the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle within the meaning of §3105(1). The Court observed:
“Defendant’s attempt to divorce the head injury from the use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle is nonsensical. By defendant’s logic, no injury sustained in an automobile accident could ever be said to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle as long as the cause of the accident could be attributed to literally anything other than a loopback reference to the accident itself. Consequently, Gilkey’s head injury arose out of the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, and because there was a question of fact whether any of his attendant care needs arose out of the head injury, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition.”
Regarding Gilkey’s gunshot injury to the spine, the Court of Appeals noted that being intentionally shot is not a “normal risk” of driving a vehicle and that the vehicle was the “mere incidental situs” of Gilkey’s gunshot injury. In this regard, the Court concluded:
“That he was shot while driving meant either that he was deliberately targeted, which could have happened anywhere, or he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which again could have happened anywhere. We suspect that crashing immediately after being shot could not have improved his likelihood of recovering, but there is no evidence in the record to that effect. We therefore conclude that the vehicle was the mere incidental situs of Gilkey’s gunshot injury. The trial court properly granted summary disposition to the extent of benefits based on the gunshot injury.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case, finding a question of fact existed as to whether Gilkey’s need for attendant care arose from his brain injury, as opposed to his spinal cord injury from the gunshot wound.
