Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 340553; Unpublished
Judges Cameron, Ronayne-Krause, and Tukel; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)**]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion assessing whether Plaintiff Kristina Taylor (“Taylor”) suffered a serious impairment of body function the Court reversed the trial court’s order for summary disposition in favor of Defendant Grange Insurance Company (“Grange”). The Court reversed the trial court because it found Plaintiff’s evidence regarding her struggle to exercise, do housework, drive her son, and volunteer created a genuine issue of material fact for the tort threshold.
Taylor presented to the hospital immediately following a motor vehicle accident. The physicians at the hospital determined that she sustained no injuries from the accident. However, Taylor later claimed to develop headaches, neck pain, and back pain. A subsequent MRI revealed a straightening of Taylor’s cervical lordosis, which corroborated her complaints. Further, an EMG revealed radiculopathy in the spine. However, an Independent Medical Examiner did not believe that Taylor’s claims had an objective basis. Prior to her accident, Taylor’s regular activities included volunteering at church, volunteering at her son’s school, spending time with her son, driving her son to school, and exercising every other day. After the accident Taylor continued to volunteer and exercise; however, she did not volunteer as frequently as before and was limited to exercising once every week or two after the accident.
The Court found that Taylor alleged sufficient facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the accident affected her general ability to lead a normal life. The Court examined McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180; 795 NW2d 517 (2010) and found that an injury affecting one’s ability to live a normal life is when “the person’s ability to live in his or her normal manner of living has been affected, not that some of the person’s normal manner of living has itself been affected.” Because Taylor volunteered with less frequency and exercised fewer days each week, the Court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact. The Court noted that even a small effect on a person’s manner of living, may be enough to show a genuine issue of fact.
“While plaintiff apparently is able to do all the activities she did before the accident, there is evidence that she cannot engage in these activities as often as before. Thus, the evidence can be viewed as establishing that “at least some of plaintiff’s capacity to live in [her prior] manner was affected.” [McCormick, 487 Mich. at 201, 203] (“[T]here is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected.”). Accordingly, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was affected by her injuries, and we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
The Court also rejected Grange’s alternative theory that there was no evidence of an “objectively manifested impairment.” Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Taylor, the Court reasoned that corroborating medical evidence substantiating Taylor’s complaints of headaches, neck pain, and back pain was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.
“While the independent medical examiner did not believe that plaintiff’s complaints had an objective basis, other medical professionals did; when this evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a question fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment.”
The Court ultimately remanded the case back to the trial court because it found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the accident affected Plaintiff’s general ability to lead her life and whether Taylor suffered an objectively manifested injury.
