Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344022; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Cameron, 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)**)
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals REVERSED summary disposition for defendant because plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding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 a “broken clavicle” requiring surgery. Following the accident, he was “completely unable to work for approximately six weeks” in his job as an over the-road truck driver. The Court further noted that after he returned to work, the injury continued to affect “plaintiff’s ability to do his job.” Prior to his auto accident, plaintiff was able to drive “for a maximum duration of 7 ½ hours without stopping, but after the accident, he was only able to drive for a maximum of three hours without a break.” The Court further noted that plaintiff “previously enjoyed lifting weights and playing soccer and volleyball, but he testified that he no longer could engage in those activities.”
C. Medical Treatment:
The Court did not further describe the nature and extent of plaintiff’s post-accident medical treatment.
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 summary disposition was improperly granted below, the Court of Appeals first noted that “the trial court’s opinion suggests that it believed that in order for plaintiff to demonstrate that he sustained a serious impairment of body function, plaintiff was required to demonstrate an injury which would be long-lasting, if not permanent, and that the injury also would have to be exceedingly damaging to plaintiff’s ability to lead his daily life.” The Court of Appeals then rejected that contention and reiterated that under McCormick, satisfying the general ability element “merely requires that a person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected, not destroyed . . . There is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected. . . . Additionally, an injury does not need to lead to a permanent impairment; indeed, MCL 500.3135 does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last in order to have an effect on the person’s general ability to live his or her normal life.” Based on these principles, the Court then held that “viewed in the light most favorable to him, plaintiff clearly presented evidence that his general ability to live, work, and engage in activities that he previously enjoyed in his normal life have been affected by his injury. Therefore, applying the summary disposition standard, we hold that plaintiff has established a question of fact regarding whether his injuries affected his ability to lead his normal life.”
