Fraudulent Claims of Injury Defeated

Respond to Motions for Summary Adjudication or Always Lose

Barry Zalma

Nov 08, 2024

Transcript

IT PAYS DEFENDANTS TO INVESTIGATE INJURY CLAIMS

Plaintiff appealed from two orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendants even though he failed to respond to either motion.

In Chris Kallco v. Melissa Lynn Pugh, Chris Kallco, and Precise Mri Of Michigan, LLC v. Citizens Insurance Company Of The Midwest and Melissa Lynn Pugh, No. 368156, Court of Appeals of Michigan (October 30, 2024) affirmed the trial court’s decision.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 9, 2020 involving plaintiff and Pugh. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries from the accident. A year after the accident, plaintiff brought a negligence claim against Pugh, alleging that, because of Pugh’s negligence, plaintiff sustained “severe permanent and progressive personal injuries and serious impairment of a body function, including but not necessarily limited to: Head, Neck, Back, Shoulders ….” Plaintiff also brought a claim against Citizens for PIP benefits, including medical expenses, work loss, and replacement services.

Pugh and Citizens moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff could not meet his burden of showing that he sustained a threshold injury under the no-fault act and, therefore, he could not maintain his negligence claim against her. Pugh submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the report of an independent medical examination (IME) conducted by Dr. James Bragman on December 27, 2021. Dr. Bragman further observed that plaintiff had “near full range of motion” in his neck and that he was “eminently capable” of standing and touching his toes despite his refusal to do so. Dr. Bragman noted that plaintiff had “very little” medical treatment documented in his records and that he had been undergoing physical therapy for six months with no medical basis for doing so. An investigator’s report includes pictures of plaintiff walking, riding a child’s bicycle, squatting, bending over, lifting a bicycle out of a minivan unassisted, playing with a dog, driving a car, and twisting his neck.

Citizens’ motion argued that plaintiff made material misrepresentations to Citizens regarding the extent of his injuries, which rendered him ineligible for benefits.

The trial court found that, based upon the evidence presented, plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained a serious impairment of body function and therefore summary disposition in favor of Pugh was appropriate.

THRESHOLD INJURY

Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of Pugh.

Under the no fault statute the threshold question of whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function should be determined by the court as a matter of law as long as there is no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the person’s injuries that is material to determining whether the threshold standards are met.

Plaintiff was obligated to respond to Pugh’s motion in order to meet his burden of demonstrating that a fact question existed as to whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function.

The parts of plaintiff’s deposition identified by Pugh do not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function. The relevant portions of plaintiff’s deposition testimony fail to rebut the evidence and instead set forth, at best, mere subjective complaints of pain.

FRAUDULENT INSURANCE ACT

The fraud statute finds that a person who presents or causes to be presented an oral or written statement knowing that the statement contains false information concerning a fact or thing material to the claim commits a fraudulent insurance act under that is subject to the penalties imposed under the statute. A claim that contains or is supported by a fraudulent insurance act as described in this subsection is ineligible for payment of PIP benefits.

An individual commits a “fraudulent insurance act” when: (1) the person presents or causes to be presented an oral or written statement, (2) the statement is part of or in support of a claim for no-fault benefits, and (3) the claim for benefits was submitted to the MAIPF. Further, (4) the person must have known that the statement contained false information, and (5) the statement concerned a fact or thing material to the claim.

ZALMA OPINION

The evidence presented by the defendants were damning since they established the injuries claimed were false. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions to his detriment and sought reconsideration without any admissible evidence that he was truly injured. The defendants established that the Plaintiff committed fraud and he is lucky that this was a civil finding not a criminal proceeding that, in my opinion, should be presented by the prosecutor.