Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 345950
Judges Tukel, Servitto, and Beckering
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
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED a no-cause jury verdict, finding that the plaintiff did not suffer a threshold injury.
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
The plaintiff in this case was injured when a 2,000-pound spool of metal tubing struck the driver’s side of her Cadillac Escalade SUV. She claimed that the accident caused her to suffer a “herniated disc, back pain, [and] neck pain,” requiring surgery and “issues related to [a post-surgical] hernia.” Plaintiff claimed that as a result of her injuries, she was required to “miss work for more than three years.” Following trial, a jury found that plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident that caused her to suffer excess economic damages for work loss in excess of three years. However, the jury went on to ultimately conclude that plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing that these two findings were inconsistent.
C. Medical Treatment:
Plaintiff did not receive medical care at the scene of the accident and, after the crash, she continued on her way to Saugatuck for a planned weekend getaway. Plaintiff later claimed that she began to suffer significant back and neck pain and attempted to see what the Court described as her “own doctor.” However, she was “unable to obtain an appointment with her own doctor” and was referred to a chiropractor. Plaintiff later underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study, which showed a herniated disc at L5-S1. Plaintiff was then referred to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Kornblum, who recommended that Plaintiff undergo “a discectomy and spinal fusion” surgery. Plaintiff then attempted to reduce her pain by undergoing “conservative treatment,” which the Court did not describe in detail. Plaintiff’s conservative treatment failed to reduce her pain, and she “agreed with Dr. Kornblum’s recommendation for” surgery. Plaintiff continued to “report pain and an inability to return to work or her normal, pre-accident life.” Eventually, plaintiff developed a hernia at the incision where Dr. Kornblum performed the spinal surgery, leading to another surgery, a hernia repair.
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
In affirming the jury verdict rendered below, the Court did not discuss the jury’s findings in detail, stating only that the jury found that plaintiff did not suffer an “objectively manifested impairment” under McCormick. The Court then held that this finding was permissible, despite the jury’s finding that plaintiff suffered injuries causing her to “miss work for over three years.” In this regard, the Court held:
To recover economic damages, plaintiff was only required to prove that she was injured and missed work for more than three years. Oullette, 424 Mich at 87; MCL 500.3135(3)(c). In other words, plaintiff only had to convince the jury that she was injured in the automobile accident. Oullette, 424 Mich at 87. In contrast, to be permitted to obtain noneconomic damages, plaintiff was required to prove a threshold injury, which required proof of “an objectively manifested impairment . . . .” McCormick, 487 Mich at 195. According to our Supreme Court, such an impairment is one “that is evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function.” Id. at 196. In considering these different requirements, it is clear that the jury could have found that plaintiff was injured, but that the injury did not result in an “objectively manifested impairment.” Id. at 195-196; MCL 500.3135(3)(c). While an injury that resulted in a requirement to miss work for more than three years certainly suggests that there is a serious injury, it was the province of the jury to determine whether such injury caused an “objectively manifested impairment.” McCormick, 487 Mich at 195-196. Considering this Court’s requirement to find any reasonable way to logically explain the jury’s verdicts, the existence of this possibility renders plaintiff’s argument on appeal meritless. Moore, 279 Mich App at 227.
After arriving at the foregoing conclusions, the Court went on to hold that “[t]he trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on this ground.”
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.
