Liability as an independent medical evaluation (IME) examiner; Distinguishing Granados-Moreno v Facca (Unpub); Tortious interference with a contract; Civil conspiracy; Michigan Insurance Company (MIC)

The court held that plaintiffs’ claim against defendant-Burkhardt should have been dismissed “because, as an IME examiner, he was not liable to an examinee for damages resulting from the conclusions he reached or reported.” It also found the trial court erred by denying defendants summary disposition “on plaintiffs’ claim of tortious interference with a contract because plaintiffs failed to establish the elements” of the claim. Finally, the civil conspiracy claim should be “dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove a separate, actionable tort as the basis of the conspiracy.” This case arose from an underlying no-fault case for medical benefits. As to the claim against Burkhardt, the trial court and plaintiffs relied on Granados-Moreno but the court found the citation to that case unconvincing. “The duties imposed upon Burkhardt and the relationship between Burkhardt and” plaintiffs’ decedent (Richard) were “the same regardless whether the claim is for negligence, medical malpractice, or tortious interference. Burkhardt is not liable for the conclusions that he reached after the IME and reported to MIC.” Thus, the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary disposition. As to the breach of contract claim, “plaintiffs failed to present any evidence to establish a breach of the contract or ‘nonperformance of the contract’ between Richard and MIC.” Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition.