Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3148; Whether plaintiff’s alleged injuries arose out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle; MCL 500.3105(1); Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Scott v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Whether the accident aggravated a preexisting condition; Mollitor v. Associated Truck Lines; Proof of an objectively-manifested impairment; MCL 500.3135(5)(a); Statutory interpretation; Crego v. Edward W Sparrow Hosp. Ass’n

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff suffered bodily injuries arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant-insurer and remanded. Plaintiff filed suit when defendant stopped paying PIP benefits for injuries plaintiff sustained in a car accident. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding plaintiff’s “injuries and medical treatment were not caused and/or related to” the accident. On appeal, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the accident aggravated plaintiff’s preexisting conditions or caused her injuries. Because plaintiff’s expert “opined that the medical evidence revealed physical changes and conditions that could have been the result of the accident and were not necessarily all degenerative in nature, and because the medical records reflected that plaintiff had no complaints of pain or functionality problems until after the accident, a reasonable trier of fact could logically conclude that there was a causal connection between the car accident and at least the aggravation of plaintiff’s preexisting degenerative conditions.”