Auto negligence; The No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3135(1) & (5); “Serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v. Carrier; Causation; Effect of a temporal connection; West v. General Motors Corp.; Necessity of providing more than plausible conjecture; Skinner v. Square D Co.; Independent medical exam (IME)

Holding that plaintiff could not “establish a serious impairment of body function or that any impairment was caused by the car accident” at issue, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants in this case arising from a three-vehicle auto accident. The issue on appeal was whether a genuine question of material fact existed whether she suffered “a ‘serious impairment of body function’ as a result of” the accident. The court concluded that the “evidence only barely suggests that plaintiff was even seriously injured.” She had a bruised forehead and possibly a cut. She testified she had to have “her wrist ‘wrapped’ for a few weeks, but it healed on its own. On the day of the accident, plaintiff received several diagnostic scans that revealed nothing wrong. It is certainly possible for symptoms to make a delayed appearance. However, when plaintiff returned to the ER the next day, she complained of 10-out-of-10 pain, whole body numbness, and being blind; despite being in no apparent distress, playing on her phone, and joking with her family.” The court noted that she “continued to complain of pain at a level of 9 or 10 out of 10, which should have left her incoherent and wholly nonfunctional but clearly did not.” Even disregarding the conclusions of a doctor (G) who conducted an IME, she did not present anything contradicting G’s “specific and objective observations, such as a lack of muscle atrophy or a nonsensical set of reported symptoms.” While some medical notes indicated various treatments were given, there was no “affirmative statement from a medical practitioner to the effect that they found anything wrong with plaintiff beyond her self-reported pain and, possibly, some joint displacement. Plaintiff has not provided any materials from her primary doctor.” She also did not offer any actual statements from any doctor to support her contention “that there was a link between the accident and injuries plaintiff suffered[.]” She presented (1) an MRI of her thoracic spine indicating several herniated discs, (2) an “‘abnormal’ EEG, and (3) some possible joint displacement[,]” but did not provide any expert opinion explaining their significance. While she produced objective evidence suggesting “she may have some kind of injury[,]” she did not provide any “evidence of an observable impairment.”