Auto negligence; MCL 500.3135(1); Serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick v Carrier; “Objectively manifested”; Patrick v Turkelson; Alleged impairment from a head injury; MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii); Churchman v Rickerson; Motion for reconsideration; Insurance medical evaluations (IME)

Holding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the lack of objective manifestation of his alleged impairments, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-Bailey in this auto negligence case. Plaintiff was in two auto collisions in the spring of 2022. The second, in May, involved defendant. The parties’ arguments focused on “whether plaintiff’s alleged impairments were objectively manifested.” Defendant presented “(1) a transcript of plaintiff’s deposition; (2) medical records related to [his] emergency-room visit immediately after the [May] collision; (3) [his] medical progress report from an orthopedic and spine specialist completed” a week later; (4) his 2/20/23 “medical report from a physician specializing in neurological disorders, along with the results of a [6/6/23] MRI of plaintiff’s brain; (5) a history and treatment chart from [his] primary care physician for a [2/17/23] visit; (6) a [9/7/23] report from an IME of plaintiff by a neurologist; and (7) a [9/8/23] report from an IME” by an orthopedic surgeon. The court held that defendant met her initial burden by showing “that plaintiff could not establish an essential element of his claim.” Thus, the burden shifted to him to show the existence of a genuine issue of disputed fact. The court found no error in the trial court’s determination that he did not. He “generally asserted that he injured his knee, but he identified nothing—either in his written response or at the motion hearing—to demonstrate any objective manifestation of that alleged impairment. As to his neck and back,” he did not explain how the “proof of his preexisting injuries might alone be sufficient to demonstrate an objectively manifested aggravation of those injuries by the” May accident. While his “medical records indicate that he complained of heightened pain in his neck and back in the days following [that] collision, and those subjective complaints are correspondingly reflected in the IME reports, this evidence did not show objective manifestation of those subjective complaints.” As to his alleged impairment from a head injury, the ER records he cited reflected “(1) no subjective complaints or objective findings regarding headaches, dizziness, or other neurological symptoms during [his] emergency-room visit immediately after the collision, and (2) subjective complaints of headaches during his [ER] visit two days after [it], but no objective manifestation of those complaints.”