Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 347668; Unpublished
Judges Gadola, Cavanagh, and M. J. Kelly; 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)**]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, summary disposition for defendant was AFFIRMED because the plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment under McCormick.
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a 2017 motor vehicle crash, which she claimed resulted in “back spasms” which later caused her to slip and fall and suffer additional injuries on two subsequent occasions. Regarding Plaintiff’s claimed auto-related injuries, the court noted that following her accident, she “had no complaints of pain or injury as a result of the collision.” The next day, however, she went to the emergency room with complaints of “back pain, severe abdominal pain, and numb legs. At the hospital, Cureton had imaging scans done of her chest, abdomen, pelvis, and the thoracic and lumbar region of her spine.” The scans revealed “[n]o appreciable acute posttraumatic sequela chest, abdomen, or pelvis” and “[n]o acute osseous injury of the thoracic or lumbar spine.’ The scans also showed that multiple subcentimeter cystic lesions within Cureton’s pancreatic head, and it was recommended that Cureton have a follow-up scan of the pancreas in 12 months.”
C. Medical Treatment:
The court did not further discuss in great detail the nature and course pf Plaintiff’s post-accident medical treatment, noting only that “one week after the crash, Cureton followed up with her primary care physician [and] indicated that, sometime before the car crash, she was prescribed pain medication and was placed on a high-blood pressure medicine. Cureton attributed her high-blood pressure to the motor-vehicle crash, stating that the pain caused by the accident raised her blood pressure. In addition, from August 2017 until November 2017, Cureton “treated with a chiropractor, who Cureton said told her that her back was dislocated and her pelvic bone was titled because of the July 2017 crash.” The court then recognized that Plaintiff received treatment for the subsequent injuries suffered in connection with her slip and fall accidents, but concluded that those injuries were not related to the accident.
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
In holding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the objective manifestation element under McCormick, the court relied heavily on the absence of objective medical or radiological evidence, and found that plaintiff’s claimed impairments were supported only by subjective complaints of pain. In this regard, the court stated, “Cureton testified that because of the crash, her back was damaged. She asserted that the specifics of her back injury were related to her by her chiropractor, who told her that her back was dislocated and her left pelvic bone was titled. She also articulated, multiple times, that she had extreme pain in her back as a result of the accident.” The court further noted that, “[h]owever, the CT scans performed the day after the accident reveal no acute trauma to Cureton’s spine. Rather, the imaging results specifically stated:
Thoracic spin: Normal vertebral body height and alignment. Disc spaces are maintained. Facet joints articulate anatomically. No appreciate acute fracture. No significant degenerative changes. Perivertebral soft tissues are within normal limits.
Lumbar spine: Normal vertebral body height and alignment. Disc spaces are maintained. Facet joints articulate anatomically. No appreciable acute fracture. No significant degenerative changes. Perivertebral soft tissues are within normal limits.”
The court then noted that although chiropractic records submitted by Cureton “indicate that she had a subluxated vertebrae, the records do not attribute her injuries to the July 2017 motor-vehicle crash, nor do they include any objective imagining scans. Likewise, although Cureton testified that in the later part of 2017, she started developing back spasms, there is no evidence linking her self-reported back spasms to an objectively manifested impairment of her back. Consequently, although Cureton complains of subjective back pain as a result of the accident, she has failed to direct this Court to any evidence of an objectively manifested impairment of her back.”
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.
