Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #281233; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Whitbeck, and Gleicher; unanimous: per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, 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)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious impairment of body function, under MCL 500.3135(1), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in McCormick v Carrier.
The plaintiff in this case sustained an incomplete, stable, nondisplaced fracture of her seventh cervical vertebra that resulted in the plaintiff requiring the usage of a neck brace to immobilize her neck for approximately one month, and resulted in the plaintiff being disabled from work for approximately three months. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff worked as a car wash manager. During the three months that the plaintiff’s neck injury rendered her unable to work, her managerial position was given to another employee at the car wash. When the plaintiff returned to work to the car wash, she accepted a position as a car washer and then was ultimately transferred to a cashier’s post. Furthermore, the plaintiff testified that she was able to perform yard work and household chores following the accident, but that she was no longer able to play on the trampoline with her children or pursue her previous hobby of working on cars.
The Court recognized that in order to establish a serious impairment of body function, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) objectively manifested impairment (observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions) (2) of an important body function (a body function of value, significance, or consequence to the injured person) that (3) affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life (influences some of the plaintiff’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living).
In upholding the trial court’s denial of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals recognized that McCormick instructs that “the threshold question whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function should be determined by the court as a matter of law as long as there is no factual dispute regarding ‘the nature and extent of the person’s injuries’ that is material to determining whether the threshold standards are met.” The Court of Appeals further recognized that in McCormick, the Supreme Court reasoned that when evaluating whether a person’s injuries have affected the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life, courts should consider not only whether the impairment has led the person to completely cease a pre-incident activity or lifestyle element, but also whether, although a person is able to lead his or her pre-incident normal life, the person’s general ability to do so was nonetheless affected.
The Court of Appeals recognized that because the parties did not dispute the facts surrounding the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the Court could decide as a matter of law whether the plaintiff’s injuries satisfied the serious impairment threshold under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i) and the Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick. Notably, the Court of Appeals was only reviewing the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and there is no indication that the plaintiff brought her own motion for summary disposition that she had sustained a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. The Court ultimately determined that the trial court was correct in denying summary disposition in favor of the defendant, reasoning that the plaintiff had sustained an objectively manifested impairment in the form of a fracture of the C7 vertebra and that the impairment had affected the plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life, and that she was forced to wear a cervical collar for two months, she lost her management position at work that affected her career path and yearly income, and she was unable to perform certain hobbies such as playing with her children on a trampoline and working on cars. In this regard, the Court of Appeals specifically held:
“…The September 2005 collision caused plaintiff to suffer an objectively manifested impairment, specifically, a fracture of the C7 vertebra visible on a CT scan. A fracture in this area adversely impacts an important body function. Netter v Bowman, 272 Mich App 289, 306; 725 NW2d 353 (2006) (“[M]ovements of one’s back and neck are important body functions.”), overruled in part on other grounds in McCormick, 487 Mich at 197 n 11. As the McCormick Court noted, this analysis is, by necessity, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. McCormick, 487 Mich at 215.
The question then becomes whether the facts and circumstances show that plaintiff’s impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life. McCormick, 487 Mich at 215. Before the accident, plaintiff worked as a car wash manager, and enjoyed hobbies like working on cars and playing billiards. After plaintiff endured the C7 vertebra fracture on September 20, 2005, she wore a cervical collar for two months and could not work for three months. During this recovery period, the car wash filled plaintiff’s management position. Plaintiff returned to work without restrictions at the car wash in December 2005, but did not resume her management position, and therefore made less money. Within several months, plaintiff took a different job as the manager of a bar, where she earned approximately $10,000 less per year than she had in her car wash management position. Plaintiff testified that following her recovery she could perform household chores as she had before the accident, and had the ability to play with her children, although she did not jump on the trampoline with the children as she had done prior to the accident. Plaintiff resumed playing billiards six weeks after the accident, but never resumed working on cars because that activity caused her muscles to become inflamed and painful.
In summary, plaintiff permanently lost her car wash management position because she was unable to work for three months after the accident, and she has experienced a significant income reduction. Furthermore, the accident prevented plaintiff from ever resuming her hobby of working on cars, which currently places substantial strain on her muscles. We conclude that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, these facts demonstrate that her objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affected her general ability to lead her normal life ‘(influence[d] some of . . . [her] capacity to live in . . . her normal manner of living).’ McCormick, 487 Mich at 215. Consequently, the circuit court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
