Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 293455 and 294205; Published
Judges Jansen, Sawyer, and O’Connell; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 291 Mich App 496 (2011), Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published post-McCormick decision by Judge Sawyer, the Court of Appeals upheld a jury determination that plaintiff did not satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold and the trial court did not err in denying JNOV.
Plaintiff was injured when her car was struck from behind while stopped at a red light. She sustained injuries to her neck and shoulder which caused her pain and limited her range of motion. She underwent physical therapy and several surgeries and was required to take off a significant amount of time from her work. However, she was also able to return to work, go on business trips, and participate in different organizations and social events, although not as much as before the accident.
On appeal from a judgment of no cause entered after a jury found that plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while the definition of “serious impairment of body function” has changed following McCormick, possibly allowing more serious impairment questions to go to a jury, the statute itself remains the same. Here, the judge determined that there was a factual dispute and sent the question to the jury. The jury heard all of the evidence presented by both parties on all the injuries and returned with a verdict of no serious impairment of body function. The jury instructions did not include wording specific to Kreiner’s more stringent definition of serious impairment of body function. Therefore, the court held that as long as the jury did not hear anything prejudicial in reference to Kreiner, the case does not have to be retried in light of McCormick. Therefore, the jury verdict was upheld and the trial court’s denial of JNOV was affirmed.
