 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rammeloo v. Williams11/25/2003
oof that it affected plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life. Defendants focus on the point that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence establishing that plaintiff received medical treatment or psychiatric care after the first accident and before the second accident, and that Dr. Ochberg did not conduct a physical examination but instead relied on plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and physical problems. Defendants argue that plaintiff has abandoned on appeal any claim of serious impairment predicated solely on physiological symptoms, outside the context of PTSD, because plaintiff only presents a PTSD argument on appeal. Because PTSD is not identified in plaintiff's complaint, defendants conclude that summary disposition would also be proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
With respect to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, defendants argue that there was no legitimate excuse for not providing Dr. Browne's affidavit and Dr. Ochberg's deposition transcript prior to summary disposition given that both doctors started their professional relationship with plaintiff long before the motion was decided. Defendants argue that any delay was plaintiff's fault, not defendants or the trial court; therefore, the motion for reconsideration lacked a proper basis and was rightfully denied. Moreover, according to defendants, the additional evidence, even if considered, had no impact on the trial court's proper resolution of the case.
B. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Koenig v City of South Haven, 460 Mich 667, 674; 597 NW2d 99 (1999). Issues of law are also reviewed de novo. Mahaffey v Attorney General, 222 Mich App 325, 334; 564 NW2d 104 (1997).
C. Tests for Summary Disposition - MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10)
MCR 2.116(C)(8) provides for summary disposition where " he opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted." A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Beaudrie v Henderson , 465 Mich 124, 129; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). The trial court may only consider the pleadings in rendering its decision. Id. All factual allegations in the pleadings must be accepted as true. Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 380-381; 563 NW2d 23 (1997).
MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides for summary disposition where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. Our Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court may grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the affidavits or other documentary evidence show that there is no genuine issue in respect to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co , 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). In addition, all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties are viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id . Where the burden of proof on a dispositive issue rests on a nonmoving party, the nonmoving party may not rely on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). Where the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence establishing the existence of a material factual dispute, the motion is properly granted. Id. at 363.
D. Serious Impairment of Body Function, Discussion, and Conclu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|