COA affirms car accident ruling for defense.

Byline: Thomas Franz

A Michigan Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Wayne Circuit Court ruling that granted a motion for summary disposition in a case stemming from a November 2013 car accident in Detroit.

In Castro v. Duesette (MiLW No. 08-100428, 16 pages), Judges Jonathan Tukel and Michael F. Gadola ruled the plaintiff failed to establish cause in fact as well as finding no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function.

Judge Douglas B. Shapiro wrote an eight-page dissent.

Background

On Nov. 24, 2013, defendant Todd Duesette struck plaintiff Margio Castro while both parties were driving in Detroit.

Castro claims that he sustained injuries to his neck and shoulders because of the accident.

After the collision, both parties drove to the police station to report the collision. The police report indicated that the plaintiff didn't report any injury.

The COA provided additional history of several work and auto-related accidents sustained by the plaintiff. In 1998, he was in a car accident after which he claimed to have chest and spinal injuries.

Plaintiff was in a car accident in 2003 and he claimed injuries to many body parts.

In 2004, an MRI of his left shoulder indicated possible tendonitis.

In August 2012, he reported a workplace construction injury, and in December 2012, at a new construction job, he reported an arm injury from twisting while moving a concrete object.

After the November 2013 car accident, plaintiff reported to a doctor that he began having neck and shoulder pain, but the doctor concluded there was no objective evidence of any injury from the collision.

The majority wrote that two days after the accident, plaintiff returned to a labor-intensive job 40-50 hours per week and continued that schedule until shortly before Christmas.

He worked throughout the following April before reporting he pulled his neck and shoulder and needed transportation to a hospital.

He resumed work with a lifting restriction immediately and on May 20 did not require any lifting restriction. Plaintiff testified he was fired in July 2014 because he was unable to perform the work.

Outside of work, the COA wrote that the plaintiff continued his hobbies of participating in dance contests and playing bongo drums.

In March 2016, he participated in the Michigan Dance Challenge with his wife.

In April 2017, the plaintiff appeared for a deposition with his left arm in a sling and testified he hadn't played...