Background
Omika Simmon sought first-party personal protection insurance benefits for treatment she attributed to an August 2019 chain-reaction collision. State Farm initially paid benefits but stopped in June 2020 after orthopedic surgeon Paul Drouillard, D.O., conducted an insurer-requested medical examination and concluded that the accident had caused no new injury or aggravation of a preexisting condition.
Simmon sued for benefits covering later chiropractic care, physical therapy treatments, and medical mileage. At trial, her treating providers attributed her conditions to the collision, while Drouillard disputed causation. The trial court allowed Drouillard to testify, admitted his observation that a photograph showing no visible vehicle damage suggested an extremely minor event, and directed a verdict for State Farm on the physical therapy bills. The jury found that Simmon had sustained an injury or aggravation but found that it did not arise from the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. The court therefore entered a judgment of no cause of action.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that MCL 500.3151 governs the qualifications of physicians who conduct insurer-requested examinations, not the admissibility of their testimony at trial. The statute therefore did not bar Drouillard’s testimony merely because his orthopedic specialty differed from those of the providers whose later treatment was at issue.
The court agreed, however, that Drouillard’s statement about the vehicle photograph was inadmissible. Treated as lay opinion, the statement was neither helpful to determining a disputed fact nor relevant because it did not illuminate whether the collision caused Simmon’s injuries. The error was harmless given the brevity of the testimony, the jury’s independent access to the photograph, the absence of reliance on the statement during closing argument, and contrary testimony from Simmon’s medical expert.
The court declined to decide whether the partial directed verdict on physical therapy bills was erroneous. Because the jury’s undisturbed verdict established a lack of motor-vehicle causation, any error concerning which bills would have been compensable could not have affected the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- MCL 500.3151 regulates the qualifications of physicians conducting insurer-requested examinations but does not independently restrict their trial testimony.
- An orthopedic surgeon’s lay characterization of a collision as “extremely minor” based on a vehicle photograph was inadmissible because it was not helpful or relevant to medical causation.
- The evidentiary error did not warrant reversal because it was not more likely than not to have affected the verdict.
- Once the jury rejected motor-vehicle causation, any error concerning the compensability of particular physical therapy bills was harmless.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes statutory requirements for conducting a no-fault medical examination from the rules governing admissibility of testimony at trial. A specialty mismatch under MCL 500.3151 does not, by itself, exclude the examining physician’s testimony.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of the verdict’s causation finding in PIP litigation. When a jury finds that an injury did not arise from the use of a motor vehicle, disputes over whether particular treatments or bills otherwise qualify for reimbursement will generally not change the judgment.