Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 350776; Unpublished
Judges Letica, Gleicher, and O’Brien; 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:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing plaintiffs Angel Johnson and Stephen Pritchard’s third-party auto negligence lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that Pritchard failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether his alleged injuries were caused by the accident or were preexisting, and that summary disposition was properly granted in defendant Charles Bowman’s favor as to Pritchard’s claims. The Court of Appeals held conversely, however, that plaintiff Johnson presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether her injuries were caused by the accident and as to whether her injuries satisfied the three-part serious impairment of body function test set forth in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (2010).
Plaintiffs Pritchard and Johnson were injured when a motor vehicle rear-ended them after they braked to avoid hitting a dog crossing the street. Pritchard allegedly hit his knee and head during the crash and suffered disc herniations in his back and neck as a result. Johnson allegedly hit the steering wheel with her chest and face, which resulted in disc herniations in her lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine. Pritchard and Johnson filed a third-party lawsuit against Bowman in which the trial court granted summary disposition in Bowman’s favor, finding that Pritchard had not proven his alleged injuries were caused by the crash and finding that Johnson did not sustain a threshold injury that constituted a serious impairment of body function.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order as to Pritchard, finding that he failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether his injuries were caused by the crash. The Court noted that his medical records contained “no statement or opinion from his treating physicians that the motor vehicle accident was the cause of his injuries,” and that, considering his extensive history of preexisting injuries, it could only speculate as to whether the crash was the true cause of the injuries he received treatment for after the crash. The court stated in pertinent part:
“The trial court did not err when it granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor as to Pritchard’s injuries because he failed to present evidence that the motor vehicle accident caused those injuries. [citation omitted] Pritchard’s medical recrods contain no statement or opinion from his treating physicians that the motor vehicle accident was the cause of his injuries. Coupled with Pritchard’s rather large record of preexisting injuries, particularly chronic back pain and injuries, it is speculative as to whether the motor vehicle accident caused any of the ailments he suffers from. [citation omitted] The only record evidence related to the issue of causation is Pritchard’s independent medical examination (“IME”). While the IME is not definitive because the doctor did not have access to all of Pritchard’s prior medical records, the doctor could not find any evidence that Pritchard’s knee or back pain were related to the motor vehicle accident. Absent any evidence demonstrating that Pritchard’s various ailments were caused or aggravated by the accident, and not because of his preexisting conditions, he cannot establish the causation necessary to recover.”
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order regarding Johnson, however, finding that she did present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether her injuries were caused by the accident. Specifically, the Court noted that “Dr. Horst Griesser, Johnson’s treating physician, repeatedly stated in his office visit notes that Johnson’ injuries, in his medical opinion, were caused by the motor vehicle accident.”
The Court then turned to the three-part test set forth in McCormick, holding first that Johnson’s injuries were objectively manifested considering she produced an MRI that showed the aforementioned disc herniations. The Court next held, with respect to the second prong, that “one’s ability to use the neck and spine are important bodily functions.” As to the third prong, the Court noted that Johnson was no longer able to work after the crash and that Dr. Griesser “imposed restrictions on Johnson’s ability to work and complete daily tasks.” The Court also noted that although Johnson’s physical therapy records are inconsistent, the records did state that she exhibited moderate to severe pain when performing daily activities. Therefore, the Court held that a question of fact existed as to whether her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
“Johnson claims to have neck and back injuries that were objectively substantiated by her medical records. [citation omitted] Johnson’s MRI, for example, demonstrated that she had disc herniations in her lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine. Her medical records from Dr. Griesser also contain objective evidence of these injuries, as he observed spinal tenderness assocated with pain. The record does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence presented shows Johnson’s injuries were solely preexisting or subjective in nature; moreover, the extent that these injuries were aggravated by the accident is a question of fact. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Johnson, we conclude the trial court erred on its conclusion on the first prong.”
The trial corut did not opine on whether the injuries to Johnson’s neck and back were impairments to an important bodily function. [citation omitted] Defendant also does not challenge that Johnson’s impairments, whatever their origin, are not of an important bodily function. We have previously held one’s ability to use the neck and spine are important bodily functions. [citation omitted]. Accordingly, we conclude that Johnson satisfied the second prong at this stage.
Turning to [sic] third prong, the trial court determined that Johnson’s injuries did not impair her ability to lead a normal life. The trial court focused on Johnson’s physical therapy records that, in its view, state Johnson was functionally independent and able to complete normal activities. But Johnson testified that she was no longer able to work after the accident. Dr. Griesser also imposed restrictions on Johnson’s ability to work and complete daily tasks. And, although Johnson’s physical therapy record are inconsistent, they did state that she exhibited moderate to severe pain when performing daily activities. Again, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Johnson, there is a question of fact about whether her impairment impact her ability to lead a normal life.
