Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 339102; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Markey, and Letica; 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)**]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals denied summary disposition for Defendant David Owen Clark (“Clark”) regarding Plaintiffs Adel and Efada Ali (“the Alis”) failure to meet the tort threshold on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the objective manifestation of the injuries because there were medical tests to back up the Alis’ subjective complaints. The Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the inability for the Alis to live their normal lives because the injuries aggravated pre-existing medical conditions.
The Alis were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Clark. After the accident both plaintiffs complained about pain in their necks, lower backs, and upper backs. The Alis’ physician performed several tests for the couple, which supported their complaints of pain. The Court did not explain what tests were conduct, but instead noted the results and observations. Other physicians observed and noted reduced range of movements for both Alis in their cervical and lumbar regions. An MRI of Adel’s spine revealed a disc bulge at the L4 and L5 level; a disc bulge at the L5 and S1 level; and a small disc herniation between C4, C5, and C6. Adel did suffer from back and neck pain prior to the accident and had a previous MRI of his spine revealing herniation between C4, C5, and C6. An MRI of Efada revealed several disc bulges as well.
The Alis brought an action for negligence under MCL 500.3135. Defendant argued that the Alis failed to demonstrate that their injuries were objectively manifested. Defendant also argued that the Alis failed to demonstrate a casual connection between the accident and the injuries. The trial court agreed and granted summary disposition finding no genuine issue of material fact. The Alis appealed.
The Court rejected Defendant’s argument that there was no genuine issue of material fact because the injuries were unsupported by objective medical testing. The Court explained that subjective complaints that are supported by objective medical testing will satisfy the criteria under MCL 500.3135. In McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 195; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), the Supreme Court of Michigan explained that there are three elements that must be met to bring an action under MCL 500.3135 for a serious impairment of body function: “(1) an objectively manifested impairment (2) of an important body function that (3) affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life. Citing to McCormick the Court explained that an “‘objectively manifested’ impairment is commonly understood as one observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions” The Alis had provided sufficient evidence to support their subjective complaints of pain. The Alis provided medical records and MRI reports that supported their claims of subjective pain. Thus, the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the objective manifestation of the injury.
“Despite the subjectivity of plaintiffs’ complaints of pain and suffering, they provided objective medical evidence to establish a physical basis for their complaints which created a genuine issue of material fact. See [McCormick]. at 197-198. In addition, plaintiffs’ physicians observed some aspects of their respective impairments, including reduced range of motion. That Clark provided contradictory evidence does not entitle him to summary disposition.”
The Court next explained that a tortfeasor may be liable for aggravating a pre-existing condition. The Court first explained that causation was not part of the “objective manifestation” criterion. However, failure to establish proximate cause would bar the Alis from recovering damages for negligence. The Court cited to Patrick v Turkelson, 322 Mich App 595, 615-616; 913 NW2d 369 (2018) and explained that proximate causation had two elements: (1) cause in fact and (2) legal causation. Legal causation is established by demonstrating that the harm caused was foreseeable. Id. Legal causation is not destroyed if an accident aggravates a pre-existing condition. See Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 394-397; 617 NW2d 305 (2000). Clark did not argue against cause in fact. Rather, Clark argued against legal causation by presenting evidence that both of the Alis reported similar complaints of back and neck pain long before the subject automobile accident. However, the Court found that this created a genuine issue of fact for the fact-finder. If the Alis did have pre-existing conditions, then the aggravation of those conditions could be compensable. Viewed in a light most favorable to the Alis, the evidence presented created a genuine issue of material fact.
“Although Clark presents this argument as one concerning the objectively manifested impairment requirement, just as he did before the trial court, the issue of causation is distinct from the threshold injury inquiry. [A]n injured party may still be entitled to recover damages if the tortfeasor’s negligence aggravated a preexisting condition or caused new symptoms. See Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 394-397; 617 NW2d 305 (2000); Fisher v Blankenship, 286 Mich App 54, 63; 777 NW2d 469 (2009). Thus, despite the possibility that plaintiffs’ injuries were the product of degenerative or preexisting conditions, a reasonable fact-finder could still conclude that a logical sequence of cause and effect existed because the extent of plaintiffs’ pain purportedly increased to the point of becoming debilitating only after the accident occurred.”
Thus, the Court vacated the trial court’s order granting summary disposition and remanded the case back to the trial court.
