Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 336061; Published
Judges Meter, Borrello and Boonstra; Unanimous, Per Curiam (Opinion by Judge Borrello)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(5)**]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)**]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by failing to follow the factors set forth in McCormick when deciding whether plaintiff-Lindsey’s impairment was objectively manifested. Also, the trial court erred by making its own evaluations as to the persuasiveness of the medical evidence related to her hearing. Further, there was a genuine issue of fact as to the nature and extent of the impairment to her hearing and that was material to the threshold injury determination. Finally, summary disposition could not have been properly granted on causation grounds because there was a genuine issue of material fact on the current record as to both the cause in fact and the legal cause of her hearing loss. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant-Turkelson’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing the action as to all defendants in this auto negligence case and remanded.
Defendants argued that Lindsey’s hearing loss did not constitute an objectively manifested impairment. “An injury is an ‘objectively manifested impairment’ if it is ‘commonly understood as one observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions.’” In this case, Lindsey produced evidence from medical professionals and others that create questions of fact as to the nature and extent of her impairment she alleged arose from her car accident. The fact that some subjective testing methods were incorporated into these medical findings did not negate her impairment as being an objectively manifested impairment. Rather, the trial court erred by failing to follow the factors set forth in McCormick. On appeal, neither party disputed that hearing is a body function that has “great value,” especially to someone who enjoys going to concerts like Lindsey did. Neither party raised an issue relative to whether hearing constituted an important body function, nor did the trial court address this issue. Thus, the court turned to the third prong in the McCormick factors to determine if a question of fact existed relative to whether Lindsey’s hearing loss affected her general ability to lead a normal life. The court held there was conflicting evidence directly related to determining whether Lindsey’s claimed injury qualified as a serious impairment of body function. Thus, the trial court erred by ruling on this question as a matter of law and granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.
