Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 334586
Judges Krause, Fort Hood, and O’Brien; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held upheld a jury determination that Plaintiff Sherry Sevic (“Sevic”) did not satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold, and held that that the trial court properly refused to grant a directed verdict in the Sevic’s favor on this issue.
Sevic collided with another vehicle on the freeway. She claimed that she suffered “a partial hamstring tear and a labrum tear that caused long term pain in her hip, lower back, and buttocks area.” A jury found that her injuries did not satisfy the no-fault tort threshold, and a judgment of no-cause of action was entered for Defendant Board of Education for Lansing School District. Sevic appealed the judgment arguing that the trial court should have granted her motion for a directed verdict on this issue. The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, after concluding that “the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, yielded factual disputes that precluded granting plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict.”
In so concluding, the Court reasoned that:
“the evidence at trial confirmed that plaintiff experienced limitations with regard to her normal, pre-accident activities, such as housework, her physical exercise activity, gardening, and walking the family dog. Plaintiff also testified about her reliance on pain medication to alleviate her pain during the day and to help her sleep at night. Plaintiff also noted that she had not travelled as much following the auto accident. Plaintiff and her husband also testified about the emotional toll that her injuries had taken on her life. However, the evidence at trial also indicated that plaintiff was able to continue performing many of her normal activities after the auto accident, including housework, gardening, and walking the family dog. For example, plaintiff, her husband, and her son all testified that after the auto accident, with limitations, plaintiff continued to (1) tend an extensive garden, (2) take long walks multiple times per week, (3) serve as primary cook for the household, and (4) perform laundry and other housework. Specifically, as noted above, defendant’s physiatrist, Dr. Chodoroff, testified that he believed plaintiff could perform normal day-to-day activities and that she could pursue a majority of typical household tasks and her usual activities of daily living. Plaintiff’s family physician, Dr. Wallace, testified that plaintiff continued to take daily walks after the accident and that those walks would be 30 to 45 minutes in duration. Plaintiff’s treating physiatrist, Dr. Winnie, testified that plaintiff did not need attendant care services and that she was able to perform routine household chores. Dr. Winnie also testified that plaintiff was walking about a mile most days. Plaintiff herself testified that she could still ‘do things’ around the house but could not do the vacuuming. Plaintiff also admitted that at the time of her deposition, she was going on two-mile walks with her dog, 4 to 5 times a week. In addition, plaintiff presented evidence that she was not able to return to her seasonal gardening job at MSU after the accident. Defendant’s physiatrist, Dr. Chodoroff, agreed that plaintiff could not return to the gardening job at MSU. However, he testified that he thought plaintiff could work at another job as long as she did not lift more than 20 pounds, did not do a great deal of bending and twisting, and did not sit for more than 30 minutes.”
On this basis, the Court held that “the trial court properly declined to determine, as a matter of law pursuant to MCL 500.3135(2)(a), whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function.”
