Conclusory allegations insufficient to creat a genuine issue of material fact.

In Wiedyk v Poisson, __ Mich __ (#149431, 10/22/2014) the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Circuit Court’s judgment for the defendants. The trial court was not required to expressly rule on whether the plaintiff’s attempt to expand the record on remand with his affidavit was proper.  Even if the affidavit was considered by the trial court, it did not err in determining that summary disposition for the defendants was warranted. When considered in light of the record developed in this case, the affidavit’s conclusory allegations regarding the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and impairments, nearly all of which the plaintiff suffered prior to the accident in question, were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s ability to lead his pre-accident lifestyle was impacted by the 2005 accident. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362, 371-372 (1996); McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 202 (2010); see also Bergen v Baker, 264 Mich App 376, 389  (2004).