Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 348646; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Letica, and Redford; 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
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED summary disposition for defendant because there was ”no genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment arising from this car accident.”
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
The plaintiff in this case suffered from numerous extensive pre-existing conditions, including, “facial numbness, neck arthritis, and degenerative conditions in her cervical spine.” Following the accident, “plaintiff received a series of medical treatments and tests regarding multiple ailments,” which the court described as “degenerative issues with her cervical spine, a disc protrusion in her cervical spine, neck pain, a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, headaches, and bruising to her knee, forehead, and buttocks as well as facial numbness, pain, and paresthesia.” The court did not describe the specific nature of the foregoing conditions, except to note that an MRI taken approximately one month after the accident on august 5, revealed “disc protrusion,” that at some point, plaintiff received a diagnosis of “cervical radiculopathy,” and that plaintiff received a diagnosis of “trigeminal neuritis” approximately two years after the accident. The court did not further discuss how plaintiff’s alleged injuries affected her daily manner of living.
C. Medical Treatment:
Other than identifying the foregoing medical findings, the court did not otherwise discuss the nature and course of the plaintiffs’ post-accident medical treatment.
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
In affirming summary disposition for Defendant, the court concluded that the “plaintiff cannot demonstrate that this car accident caused any objectively manifested impairment in order to establish tort liability.” In doing so, the court reasoned, that “[m]any of plaintiff’s cited objective impairments, particularly issues with her cervical spine, were preexisting and degenerative.” In this regard, the court noted, “Before the accident, plaintiff had degenerative changes in her spine, arthritis in her neck, and unexplained facial numbness and tingling on her left side. On the day of the accident, plaintiff reported to the hospital with bruising, no tenderness, and no indications of trauma in her cervical or lumbar spines or in her brain after objective testing. She also reported no neck pain. Plaintiff’s disc protrusion, . . .cervical radiculopathy, and her neck pain appear . . . to be related to her degenerative conditions as no physician has ever connected her complaints of pain in her cervical spine and neck to this accident or suggested that it aggravated those preexisting conditions. Likewise, many of plaintiff’s other conditions, such as her wrist issues and insomnia, have no demonstrated causal connection to this accident.” The court further noted with regard to plaintiff’s facial numbness, “When plaintiff presented to physicians after the accident, she reported facial numbness, similar to what she had reported . . . . prior to the accident. And no physician has ever connected plaintiff’s facial numbness, or its increasing severity, to the accident. Although one emergency room physician later suggested that it was possible that plaintiff had a musculoskeletal issue from the accident causing this problem, there was no objective testing that confirmed this. Indeed, even though one physician first expressed that this issue seemed connected to the motor vehicle accident, after additional consultations with plaintiff, he later assessed that there was no explanation for her condition. Another hospital physician indicated that plaintiff’s facial condition was subjective without any physical basis. Moreover, a physician’s diagnosis of trigeminal neuritis was over two years after the car accident and that physician did not clearly assess that that condition was related to the accident. Thus, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that any of the diagnosed injuries were more likely than not related to, or aggravated by, the subject accident.”
E. Element #2 – Important Body Function:
The court did not discuss this element.
F. Element #3 – General Ability:
The court did not discuss this element other than to note that “as to plaintiff’s bruising, which was undoubtedly caused by the accident, there was no indication that it impacted her functioning.”
G. Other Comments:
The Court of Appeals emphasized in this case that central to its decision was a lack of “objective” medical evidence for many of plaintiff’s claimed injuries. In this regard, the court stated, “Indeed, the only medical diagnoses that appear causally related to the subject accident, other than the bruising, were plaintiff’s diagnosis of concussion and post-concussion syndrome. However, those injuries never objectively manifested themselves as plaintiff’s MRIs, MRAs, CTs, and EEGs revealed no signs of brain or skull injury.”
