The Michigan Supreme Court in Weidyk v. Hertz, No. 149431, held that a trial court is not required to expressly rule on whether it considered an affidavit that the plaintiff submitted to expand the record on remand. 
David Weidyk allegedly suffered severe injuries in a 2005 automobile accident. Weidyk, however, was severely injured prior to the accident and Hertz argued that Weidyk suffered no new injuries as a result of the 2005 crash.

The trial court originally granted summary disposition for Hertz, but the Supreme Court remanded the case after the No-Fault standard was changed by the Court in McCormick v. Carrier. On remand to the trial court, Weidyk introduced an affidavit he had not introduced during the original summary disposition motion.  Nevertheless, the trial court still found for Hertz without expressly stating whether it considered the affidavit in its determination.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled, based on these facts, that the trial court was not required to consider the affidavit, however it must state on the record whether it did. Further, it held that if the trial court did consider the affidavit, then there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injuries sustained in the accident worsened Weidyk’s preexisting injuries, and therefore summary disposition should be denied.

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed. It held that “the trial court was not required to expressly rule on whether [Weidyk’s] attempt to expand the record on remand with his affidavit was proper,” and that even if the affidavit was introduced, there was no genuine issue of material fact as the affidavit was merely conclusory. The Court then reinstated the ruling in favor of Hertz.

Weidyk v. Hertz No 149431