Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 342041; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, O’Connell, and Tukel 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)**]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Plaintiff Craig Eichler’s (“Eichler”) on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s grant of summary disposition because Eichler failed to demonstrate the injury had impacted his general ability to lead his normal life since he did not show how his injuries affected his work and his doctor testified Eichler was capable of resuming his normal activities after the accident.
Eichler was sideswiped by Defendant Caroline Sackett’s (“Sackett”) motor vehicle while he was driving his motorcycle. The day after the accident Eichler went to the hospital because of pain in his right knee. Eichler was diagnosed with a fracture below his right knee. Dr. Farber, an orthopedic surgeon, instructed Eichler to wear a knee brace and avoid weight-bearing activities. After the accident Eichler continued to work at his part-time job with Mickey’s Pub. Eichler did not continue to work as an audio technician for AudioBahn after the accident, but his pre-accident employment with AudioBahn had been sporadic and sparse. In April of 2017, Dr. Farber lifted all Eichler’s weight-bearing restrictions. When Dr. Farber lifted all Eicher’s weight-bearing restrictions, Eichler left his job at Mickey’s Pub. Eichler brought a third-party claim against Sackett for non-economic damages.
The Court found that Eichler had failed to demonstrate how the injury had impacted his general ability to lead his normal life. The Court reviewed the requirements to sustain a third-party claim. Under MCL 500.3135(1) a plaintiff can maintain an action for negligence if he suffers a serious impairment of body function. The Court then explained that to sustain an action under the serious impairment of body function, a plaintiff must show that he suffered (1) an objectively manifested impairment (2) to an important body function (3) that affects the ability of the person to lead his normal life.
The Court agreed with the trial court and held that Eichler failed to demonstrate that the injury affected his ability to lead his normal life. The Court noted that Eichler continued to work at Mickey’s Pub after the injury. While Eichler did not continue to work at AudioBahn after the accident, his prior work with the company had been sporadic and there was no record of how long Eichler worked at AudioBahn between September 2016 and February 2017 (the date of the accident). Further, Eichler’s decision to stop working at Mickey’s Pub occurred after Dr. Farber lifted all of the weight-bearing restrictions. Thus, the Court believed this demonstrated that Eichler’s injured knee was not responsible for the end of his employment. Finally, Eichler argued that he was not able to kayak and drive his motorcycle because of the knee injury. However, Dr. Farber testified that he would not have recommended Eichler abstain from those activities.
“In this case, the trial court correctly determined that Eichler’s injury did not affect his ability to lead a normal life. First, Eichler did not show that his injury had a measurable impact on his employment. . . . In late April 2017, Dr. Farber lifted all restrictions, but Eichler apparently stopped working then. Eichler was able to work after the accident, and his decision to stop working two months later did not show that the knee injury was responsible for this decision. . . . Eichler further claimed that he was unable to engage in certain hobbies, such as driving his motorcycle and kayaking. Dr. Farber testified that he would not restrict plaintiff with respect to these specific activities, however.”
Thus, the Court upheld the lower court’s grant of summary disposition in the defendant’s favor.
