Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) under the No-Fault Act; Submission to an independent medical exam (IME); MCL 500.3151(1); MCL 500.3153; Dismissal of an action for failure to comply with discovery; MCR 2.313(B)(2)(c); Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.; Vicencio v. Ramirez; Kalamazoo Oil Co. v. Boerman; Dismissal for failure to comply with the Michigan Court Rules or a trial court order; MCR 2.504(B)(1); The trial court’s role in discovery; MCR 2.306(A)(1); Davis v. O’Brien; Domako v. Rowe

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s case without placing its reasoning and consideration of alternative sanctions on the record. Plaintiff sued defendant-insurer claiming it failed to pay PIP benefits for injuries he sustained when he was hit by its insured’s vehicle. Defendant eventually successfuly moved to dismiss the case due to plaintiff’s failures to attend IMEs and general lack of cooperation with discovery. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without conducting the requisite legal analysis or evaluating alternative sanctions on the record. It acknowledged that the record amply supported “the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff did, in fact, have a pattern of failing to comply with discovery requests until directly ordered to respond.” However, it “did not evaluate any of [the] possibilities on the record beyond bare mention of alternatively dismissing without prejudice but with costs.” In addition, the trial court’s apparent conclusion that plaintiff’s failure to attend the IME was willful was “not implausible, given his pattern of discovery violations and apparent knowledge of the various discovery notices.” However, “again, no such analysis was made on the record.” As such, it abused its discretion. “Dismissal may ultimately prove to be appropriate, but we cannot affirm a dismissal made in such a summary and unexamined manner.” Vacated and remanded.