Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #287641; Published
Judges Donofrio, Sawyer, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 286 Mich. App. 483, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of/Causation Requirement [3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Order granting defendant summary disposition, finding that the court improperly determined that plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the accident without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to address this issue and where defendant had conceded the issue of causation in its brief.
The plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to her cervical spine characterized by neck pain, muscle spasms, and reduced range of motion. The defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff’s injuries did not satisfy the serious impairment threshold. At oral argument, the trial court raised the issue of causation, to which defendant replied that it had no evidence that plaintiff’s condition was related to the accident. Plaintiff responded by quoting a physician’s report in which the doctor stated that it was “very possible that the MVA [motor vehicle accident] led to or exacerbated a cervical disc condition.” At that point, the trial court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff asked the trial court for an opportunity to produce other medical evidence, which the trial court denied. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved for reconsideration. In support of the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff attached a letter from plaintiff’s chiropractor that stated that the plaintiff’s condition was “directly related to the automobile collision.” Despite the additional evidence, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that the basic requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard were violated in this case. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals noted that the lower court decided the matter on an issue that was not before the court and that defendant had clearly conceded the causation issue for purposes of his Kreiner motion. The court recognized that the trial court has authority to sua sponte grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1). However, the Court of Appeals stated that a lower court may not grant summary disposition sua sponte in contravention of a party’s due process rights. It continued that when the trial court brought up the issue of causation, it then had a responsibility to allow plaintiff the opportunity to be heard on the issue. The court found that the trial court was dismissive of plaintiff’s counsel and failed to consider evidence which plaintiff attempted to provide. In so finding, the court stated:
“Our review of the record reveals that the basic requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard have not been satisfied in this case. . . . The trial court decided the matter on an issue not before the court at that juncture because defendant clearly conceded causation for purposes of his Kreiner motion. We are mindful of the fact that the trial court has the authority to sua sponte grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1). However, the trial court may not do so in contravention of a party’s due process rights. . . . When the trial court decided to bring up the issue of causation at the motion, the trial court then had the responsibility to provide plaintiff with the opportunity to be heard on the issue. The record reveals that the trial court was dismissive of plaintiff’s counsel and did not consider evidence plaintiff attempted to provide orally regarding causation in an attempt to avoid summary disposition. . . . For these reasons, we conclude that procedural error occurred because the basic requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard have not been satisfied in this case.”
