Jack E Poulsen v. Shannon M Visser
331925
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 8, 2017Background
- On December 11, 2013 Poulsen was rear-ended by Visser while waiting to make a right turn; State Farm was his no-fault insurer and initially paid benefits.
- State Farm later denied further PIP benefits for cervical injury after Oct 30, 2014 and for concussion/knee/thoracic injuries after Apr 3, 2014; Poulsen sued State Farm (first-party) and Visser (third-party).
- Visser moved for summary disposition arguing Poulsen failed to show a threshold injury; the trial court granted Visser’s motion on causation grounds (finding Poulsen failed to show the accident caused his injuries).
- Relying on the trial court’s reasoning, State Farm moved and obtained summary disposition on the first-party claim; Poulsen appealed.
- The trial court and defendants relied heavily on State Farm’s accident-reconstruction report and medical-examiner reports; Poulsen submitted treating-provider records, physical-therapy notes, and disability time-off documentation indicating ongoing symptoms and functional limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants disproved causation so as to meet their initial burden on summary disposition | Poulsen argued treating records and therapy notes create a factual dispute that the accident caused ongoing cervical, thoracic, and knee injuries | Defendants argued their reconstruction and medical-examiner reports negated causation and plaintiff offered no effective rebuttal | Reversed — the reconstruction and exam reports did not definitively negate causation; reasonable factfinder could find accident caused ongoing injuries |
| Whether State Farm’s medical/engineering reports required Poulsen to present affirmative rebuttal evidence to survive summary disposition | Poulsen contended he need not rebut reports that did not affirmatively negate causation because his own treating records created a factual dispute | State Farm argued its experts’ conclusions (including that plaintiff reached pre-injury status or that impact forces were minimal) negated causation/ongoing injury | Held for Poulsen — some expert reports actually supported injury; others did not conclusively eliminate causation, so no affirmative rebuttal burden arose to survive summary disposition |
| Whether Poulsen presented sufficient evidence of a threshold injury (serious impairment of body function) against Visser | Poulsen relied on objective findings (muscle spasms, limited ROM, CT showing mild disc bulges), therapy notes, lost work, and testimony about activity limitations | Visser argued plaintiff failed to show objective, important, and life-impacting impairment required under McCormick | Held for Poulsen — medical and therapy records, imaging, and functional limitations created genuine issues on all three McCormick prongs |
| Whether proximate-cause questions here are for the trier of fact or amenable to summary disposition | Poulsen maintained proximate cause is generally a factual question and records create disputes for a jury | Defendants sought resolution as matter of law based on their experts | Held for Poulsen — proximate-cause issues were factual and reasonable minds could differ, so summary disposition inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Regional Transp., 492 Mich. 707 (No-fault statutory basis for PIP and third-party limitations)
- Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643 (causal connection to vehicle use must be more than incidental or "but for")
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (elements of serious impairment of body function under No-Fault Act)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (moving party’s initial burden on summary disposition and Celotex standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153 (summary-disposition burden rules)
- Mick v. Kent County Sheriff’s Dept., 494 Mich. 367 (causation requirement in tort claims)
- Nichols v. Dobler, 253 Mich. App. 530 (proximate cause ordinarily a question for the finder of fact)
- Guerrero v. Smith, 280 Mich. App. 647 (muscle spasms can satisfy objectively manifested impairment)
- Abir Chouman v. Home Owners Ins. Co., 293 Mich. App. 434 (conflicting medical evidence can create a factual dispute on objective impairment)
- DiFranco v. Pickard, 427 Mich. 32 (medical testimony needed to show physical basis for subjective complaints)
- Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (preservation of issues raised before the trial court)