Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265971; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Markey, and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses, finding that plaintiff established a factual question concerning his closed head injury.
The plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to his head, back, and neck. The trial court determined that plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In reversing the trial court’s decision regarding the closed head injury, the Court of Appeals recognized that plaintiff did not present testimony under oath of an allopathic or osteopathic physician who regularly diagnoses or treats closed head injuries that there may be a serious neurological injury. However, the court found that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence in the form of neurological assessments which showed plaintiff suffered significant deficits in his cognitive abilities and memory. In this regard, the court stated:
“Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the neuropsychological assessment by Dr. Van Horn indicated that plaintiff’s memory and cognitive abilities were severely impaired. The inability to remember interferes with a person’s ability to lead a normal life. . . . In light of the severity of the deficits claimed by plaintiff and substantiated by Dr. Van Horn, we cannot conclude that the nature and extent of plaintiff’s closed-head injury is not material to the determination of whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function. Accordingly, a remand for trial is appropriate.”
