No-fault benefits; Effect of revocation of an assignment; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; Wallace v Suburban Mobility Auth for Reg’l Transp; Jury voir dire; Expert video depositions; MCR 2.308; MRE 702; Waiver of appellate arguments; Abandoned issues

In this no-fault case, the court held that plaintiff failed to show he was entitled to any relief on his arguments related to revocation of an assignment to a pharmacy provider or the trial court’s conduct of voir dire. He also did not show that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the video deposition expert testimony presented by defendant. Thus, the court affirmed the jury verdict awarding plaintiff work loss benefits but finding that he “was not entitled to any recovery for allowable expenses or replacement service expenses.” Among other things, he argued on appeal that because he and his counsel “are Middle Eastern, the trial court erred by prohibiting plaintiff’s counsel from inquiring during jury voir dire whether potential jurors harbored any biases about people of Middle Eastern descent.” He conceded there was no indication in the record that “the trial court denied a request to conduct specific lines of inquiry during jury voir dire.” While he asserted “such a request was made and denied in an off-the-record discussion with the trial court[,]” the court noted that its “review is confined to the record established in the trial court.” Plaintiff failed to “create a record in the trial court to facilitate review of this issue.” And the court found that his argument as to “the effect of not pursuing this line of inquiry during voir dire is speculative and unsupported by evidence of prejudice.” As to the assignment revocation issue, the court noted “that rescission of an assignment during ongoing litigation does not automatically and retroactively restore the assignor’s status as the real party in interest.” Any alleged revocation between plaintiff and the pharmacy, “absent court approval and appropriate litigation steps, was insufficient to reinstate plaintiff’s claims as to the” pharmacy bills for trial purposes. In addition, to the extent that his “actions could be construed as a request to amend the pleadings to account for the revocation and reassert” those claims, the court held that “the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying such relief. The case had been pending for nearly two years, discovery had closed, and the revocation was presented only one week before trial[.]”