Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 342774; Unpublished
Judges Gadola, Servitto, and Redford; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 — Present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 — Present) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Actual Fraud
Fraud/Misrepresentation
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, summary disposition for defendant AFFIRMED because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether his claimed impairments affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
The plaintiff in this case suffered from pre-existing degenerative disease for which he previously underwent treatment. He claimed that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident, he suffered injuries the court described as “to and about the lumbar and cervical spine.” Plaintiff claimed that his alleged injuries “affected his sex life.”
C. Medical Treatment:
Immediately following the accident, Plaintiff Cobb drove to the house of a person with whom he had contracted to provide services. “He did not require an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. Two and one half hours after the accident, he drove himself to the hospital. At the hospital, medical personnel examined and discharged Cobb after administering some pain medication and giving him a prescription.” The hospital records indicate that hospital personnel knew of Cobb’s previous treatments for the condition about which he complained, a condition they considered chronic, not acute. Plaintiff later underwent surgeries for his neck and lumbar spine after the 2016 accident. However, a review of Plaintiff’s medical record confirmed that the surgeries and his post-surgery treatment were not necessitated by the 2016 accident, but rather, were necessitated by his degenerative disc disease.
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
The Court did not discuss this element.
E. Element #2 – Important Body Function:
The Court did not discuss this element.
F. Element #3 – General Ability:
In holding that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether his claimed impairments affected his general ability to lead his normal life, the court noted that “when questioned regarding how the 2016 accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life, Cobb only testified that it affected his sex life. When asked to explain how, he stated that he was single and before the accident he had frequent sexual relations each week, but after the accident he had sexual relations only four times. When pressed further, Cobb admitted that his sexual relations issues had been going on for quite a while because of his left knee which had nothing to do with his 2016 accident but arose from an earlier motor vehicle accident. Cobb also testified that after the 2016 accident he chose not to engage in sex because he had mixed emotions that impacted his passion. He admitted that no doctor restricted him from sexual activities. Cobb also initially attributed his lack of church attendance after the 2016 accident to the accident, but when challenged he testified that he simply stopped going because the church’s members had not supported him after his accident to his liking. Cobb offered no testimony regarding any activities that he could not do after the 2016 accident that he had done before the accident.”
