Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 338817
Judges Murray, Cavanagh, and Fort Hood; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for Defendant Berry Sodergren (“Sodergren”) because questions of fact existed regarding whether Plaintiff Robin Yates (“Yates”) claimed impairments affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
Yates was taken by EMS to the hospital immediately following the accident. She complained of “neck, back, and shoulder pain.” Yates was discharged without any immediate need for treatment and was given instructions to follow up with her personal physician—who later diagnosed her with “neck strain” and instructed her not to return to her job as a security officer until approximately one month after the accident. Plaintiff was additionally treated for pain management and was additionally diagnosed “with cervical sprain, back pain, and right shoulder pain.” She was recommended to undergo physical therapy for six weeks, three times a week. She ultimately went on to attend physical therapy for approximately six months. Approximately five months after the accident, MRI images were taken and plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical sprain and a small rotator partial tear based on those images.
Sodergren moved for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function contending that plaintiff failed to establish “that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.” The Court of Appeals held that “there is sufficient evidence to establish that the cervical and lumbar strain and torn rotator cuff injuries . . . did affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal pre-accident life.” In so holding, the Court reasoned that “[b]efore the accident, plaintiff’s primary activity was working at her job as a security officer for 40 hours a week and her secondary activity was bowling in a bowling league two days a week, year round. Both of these activities were severely impacted and/or curtailed altogether. With regard to her job, plaintiff was unable to return to work in the same position she had before the accident. Plaintiff testified that because her level-2 job duties required her to pick up 40-pound fire extinguishers, which she could not do, she was in danger of being fired. Fortunately, the union she was in made it possible for her to be reassigned to a desk job. Plaintiff’s pre-accident recreational activity of bowling was curtailed altogether. Plaintiff testified clearly that she was unable to bowl anymore because of her injury. Plaintiff also has trouble with doing housework, lifting the heavy pans required for cooking, drawing with her granddaughter, and tying her own shoes. . . . At a minimum, there is a question of fact concerning the extent to which plaintiff’s injuries impacted her ability to live her normal pre-accident life. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor under MCR 2.116(C)(10).”
