First-party & third-party action for injuries sustained in an auto accident; The “arising under” causation requirement contained in MCL 500.3105(1); McPherson v McPherson; Reliability of expert testimony under MRE 702; MCL 600.2955; Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc; Causation in a negligence action; Patrick v Turkelson; Recovery based on exacerbation of a preexisting condition; Wilkinson v Lee; Due process; Al-Maliki v LaGrant; Independent medical examination (IME); MCL 500.3151(2); Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted business activity; MRE 803(6); People v Huyser; The “mend-the-hold” doctrine; CE Tackels, Inc v Fantin

The court held that the trial court erred by rejecting the proposed testimony of plaintiff’s medical experts as unreliable without properly applying MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955(1), and without affording the parties an opportunity to brief this issue. It also held that the trial court erred by concluding that one of the experts was not qualified to perform an IME under MCL 500.3151. Finally, it held that intervening plaintiff-MSBS failed to show that the expert’s IME report constituted inadmissible hearsay, or that the trial court erred by failing to apply the mend-the-hold doctrine. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries he allegedly sustained in an auto accident. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants finding he failed to present “reliable” evidence that the accident caused his injuries. On appeal, the court held that summary disposition on causation grounds was improper for two reasons. First, “no evidence supported that the opinions of [the medical experts] were unreliable or inadmissible under MRE 702, and the trial court failed to offer any reasoning in support of its ruling.” Second, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition “based on a legal theory that had not been raised or briefed by any of the parties. Before deciding the case on ‘reliability’ grounds, basic due process principles compelled the court to afford” plaintiff and intervening plaintiff notice and an opportunity to be heard on this issue. The evidence submitted by plaintiff and MSBS established the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident. The affidavits of plaintiff’s physicians easily satisfied the McPherson standard and “met the ‘arising under’ standard set forth in MCL 500.3105(1).” In addition, the evidence established genuine issues of material fact regarding how the accident occurred and whether plaintiff’s “injuries resulted from his operation or use of a motor vehicle that was more than simply fortuitous, coincidental, or ‘but for.’” Likewise, the evidence established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the other driver’s conduct was the cause in fact of plaintiff’s injuries and the treatment provided by the doctors, and whether it was foreseeable that the other driver’s conduct would have harmed plaintiff. The court further noted that “[b]ecause the trial court’s ruling does not indicate that it considered any aspect of MRE 702 or ‘the range of indices of reliability listed in MCL 600.2955,’” it had no basis for deciding that the trial court properly performed its gatekeeping role. As such, its “reliability ruling was premature and based on an inadequate record.” Finally, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the “mend-the-hold” doctrine. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.