Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263937; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, O’Connell, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010 [3135(7)]
Liability for Excess Economic Loss Caused by Insured Tortfeasors [3135(3)(b)]
Causation Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claims for non-economic losses and excess wage loss beyond three years from the date of the accident. The plaintiff in this case alleged his pre-existing back injuries were exacerbated by the accident. In affirming summary disposition for defendant, the Court of Appeals first noted that although plaintiff presented evidence he sustained objectively identifiable injuries to his back, he failed to show how these injuries were caused by the accident. In this regard, the court stated:
“The evidence shows that plaintiff, for many years, has suffered from a degenerative spinal condition. However, none of the physicians who treated plaintiff stated, either in their records or in deposition testimony, that any of the alleged injuries were caused by the accident. Aside from a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, plaintiff cites no evidence whatsoever indicating that any of his alleged injuries were caused by the accident.”
The court then determined plaintiff failed to show he suffered a wage loss beyond three years as a result of the accident. In so finding, the court recognized that an injured person may recover excess economic work loss damages under MCL 500.3135(3)(c), even if the person failed to meet the threshold requirements under MCL 500.3135(1). Nonetheless, the court determined plaintiff failed to show he incurred lost wages because of the accident. In this regard, the court noted:
“Plaintiff has indeed submitted evidence that his wages have decreased from the time of the accident. However, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this loss was caused by the accident. The trial court correctly pointed out that there was no evidence that plaintiff suffers any injuries or pain that prevent him from going to work. None of plaintiff’s doctors indicated that plaintiff is unable to work as a result of the accident or, for that matter, unable to work for any reason. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff, while going on vacations, painting a house, and driving his children to school, voluntarily chose to cease working. Therefore, we agree that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any wage loss as a result of the accident.”
