In the recent unpublished decision of Advisacare HealthCare Solutions v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether an injury arose out of a single motor vehicle accident. Vivian Mazade suffered rib fractures, a sternal fracture, and a deep laceration in her left leg as a result of the accident. She was treated at a hospital and then received home care services before being discharged having regained considerable independence. Her treating doctors believed she had balance issues related to the injury to her leg and was more susceptible to falls.
Several months after the accident, Ms. Mazade went to visit family in another state. While there, she suffered several falls and more injuries to her left leg. Her doctor attributed the falls to the accident. Upon her return to Michigan, Ms. Mazade presented to the hospital with an infection in her left leg which was diagnosed as sepsis and cellulitis and ultimately led to her left leg being amputated. Her treating doctors attributed the infection and amputation to the subject accident because of her decreased mobility and balance issues. Defendant’s expert opined the infection was not related to the accident and defendant denied Ms. Mazade’s claim on the basis that the amputation was not directly caused by the accident. Plaintiff filed suit seeking payment for attendant care benefits, Defendant moved for summary disposition based upon the above argument, and the trial court denied the motion. A jury then entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that under MCL 500.3105 an insurer is only liable for benefits for accidental bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” The Court opined that the trial court should have applied the analysis and holding of McPherson v McPherson, 493 Mich 294 (2013), which was that facts supporting a finding that a first injurycausing a second accident which in turn causes a second injury is not sufficient to establish the necessary causal connection between an accident and an injury.
The Court of Appeals, reviewing the record of the trial court, found no evidence that the injuries Ms. Mazade suffered in the accident caused the infection and amputation. There was no evidence that Ms. Mazade’s subsequent falls resulted in her re-opening her wounds from the car accident or that it was the wounds from the accident that actually became infected. Instead, the evidence merely showed that Ms. Mazade had several falls after the accident, that at least one of those falls contributed to her infection, and that infection caused her amputation. Ms. Mazade’s doctors testified only that because the accident caused her to suffer instability, it was that instability that led to her falls and one of those falls resulted in an infection. Thus, similar to McPherson, the record only established that the first injury directly caused the second accident which in turn caused the second injury. As such, the falls were too remote and attenuated from the accident to permit a finding that the causal connection between the accident and infection/amputation were more than incidental, fortuitous, or “but for.” The Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Defendant.