No-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Insurance medical examination physician testimony; MCL 500.3151(2)(a); MCL 600.2169; Photograph testimony; MRE 401, 402, & 701; Harmless error; MCR 2.613(A); Partial directed verdict; Physical-therapy bills; Causation

The court held that MCL 500.3151 did not bar defendant-insurer’s orthopedic expert from testifying at trial. Although his testimony about a photograph of plaintiff’s vehicle was inadmissible, the error was harmless, and any error in the partial directed verdict on physical-therapy bills was also harmless. Plaintiff-insured sought PIP benefits for chiropractic treatment, physical therapy, and medical mileage following an auto accident. Defendant stopped paying benefits after an orthopedic surgeon (Dr. D) examined plaintiff and concluded that she had not sustained a new injury or aggravation of a preexisting condition in the accident. Plaintiff argued that MCL 500.3151 barred his trial testimony because he did not share the same specialty as the providers whose treatment was at issue. The court rejected this argument because “nothing in the plain language of MCL 500.3151 speaks to what evidence or testimony is or is not admissible at trial.” The statute governs the qualifications of physicians conducting insurance medical examinations, while MCL 600.2169 expressly governs expert testimony in medical-malpractice cases. The court next agreed that Dr. D’s testimony that the lack of visible vehicle damage suggested an “extremely minor event” was inadmissible. Although it constituted lay rather than expert opinion, it was not helpful in determining a fact at issue and was irrelevant. But the error was harmless given the photograph itself was admitted, the brevity of the testimony, the lack of reliance on it in closing argument, and contrary testimony from plaintiff’s expert. Finally, the jury found that plaintiff’s injury did not arise from the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. Thus, because causation remained lacking, “any error by the trial court with regard to what bills were compensable was harmless.” Affirmed.