Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 338337
Judges Cameron, Fort Hood, and Gleicher; Unanimous per Curiam
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for co-Defendant AAA Michigan (“AAA”) because Plaintiff Takisha Williams (“Williams”) presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether her claimed impairments were objectively manifested, and because a question of fact existed “as to whether plaintiff’s injuries have affected her general ability to lead a normal life.”
Williams was rear-ended while stopped at a stoplight. When co-Defendant Robin Marie Wroble struck the vehicle, “plaintiff’s seatbelt immediately locked, causing her head to snap backward and hit the headrest, and she felt a tug in her left shoulder.” Plaintiff went to the hospital approximately “90 minutes after the accident” complaining of “intense pain in her neck, back, and shoulder.” A week later, she returned to the hospital and was diagnosed with “a cervical strain, lumbar strain, thoracic myofascial strain, and a left shoulder strain.” The next day, she visited her primary doctor, Dr. Stephen Swetech, who also diagnosed her with “a cervical spine strain.” Williams was prescribed “pain medication, physical therapy, and two weeks’ rest from work.” Dr. Swetech also ordered “a cervical MRI and a MRI of plaintiff’s left shoulder.” Based on the MRI results, Dr. Swetech “concluded that plaintiff had a ‘reversal of [her] cervical loradis,’ multiple marginal spurs, disc bulges, disc-spur bulges, and fatty marrow changes within her vertebrae. Results from the MRI on plaintiff’s left shoulder showed that plaintiff had tendonitis, moderate fibro-osseous capsular hypertrophy, but there was ‘no evidence for any particular bursitis or significant shoulder joint effusion.’”
Williams argued that “her neck, back, and shoulder pain constitutes an objectively manifested impairment.” The Court of Appeals agreed and held that summary disposition was improperly granted for AAA below on this issue. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on the radiological evidence and medical records submitted by Williams, finding that this “evidence of medical findings establish[es] a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s neck and back pain manifested itself in ways that were observable and documented by medical professionals.”
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that when “[v]iewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there [was also] an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries have affected her general ability to lead a normal life.” In so holding, the Court of Appeals noted that “[p]laintiff’s deposition showed that she was fired from her job as a nursing assistant because she could not perform the physical duties, and she initially required help from her mother with cooking, cleaning, laundry, showering, and dressing five or six times a week. Plaintiff testified that she can no longer run on a treadmill and cannot dance. Plaintiff also presented record evidence that she could not work for approximately seven months because of the pain she was experiencing.”
