Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 338785
Judges Cameron, Jansen, and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court below erred in granting summary disposition for Defendant Meer Deen (“Deen”) because Plaintiff Ruth Barnett-Teague (“Barnett-Teague”) presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether her claimed injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
The Court did not describe in detail the nature of Barnett-Teague’s injuries, or the extent of her post-accident treatment. The Court merely stated that “as a result of the collision, plaintiff developed carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, and neck and back issues.” Barnett-Teague’s injuries were not disputed on appeal and the only issue was whether they affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In holding that a question of fact existed on this issue, the Court noted that plaintiff’s injuries affected her private practice in internal medicine. Specifically, “there was record evidence and deposition testimony demonstrating that plaintiff’s injuries prevented her from taking on new patients, leading to the practice slowing down.” Additionally, “plaintiff presented evidence that her injuries affected her ability to continue working with Mobile, M.D., which in turn, affected her income.” Barnett-Teague’s injuries further caused her to have to “work longer hours at her medical practice,” which resulted in her having a “busier schedule.” Barnett-Teague’s busier schedule then prevented her from doing “certain things, such as walking, cleaning, cooking, and spending time with her grandchildren.”
The Court also found it significant that while plaintiff “was physically capable of cooking and cleaning, she asserted that her injury impaired her ability to cook and clean because she was tired from work and simply wanted to rest.” Also, prior to the accident, Barnett-Teague “cared for her disabled mother, who had dementia, and assisted her daughter with plaintiff’s newborn granddaughter.” Her care for her mother included staying with her at night, for which she received “a $200 stipend from the State of Michigan.” After the accident, Barnett-Teague was unable to continue caring for her mother in the same manner as a result of “medication that made her sleepy and because she did not have the strength to lift her mother when required due to her injuries.” Plaintiff further “indicated that her injuries have affected the intimacy between her and her husband, which led to them not communicating as much.”
On this basis, the Court found that Barnett-Teague presented sufficient evidence “in response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff’s serious impairment of body function affected her ability to lead her normal pre-accident life.”
