Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #295273; Unpublished
Judges K.F. Kelly, Gleicher, and Stephens; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition that plaintiff had not sustained a “serious impairment of body function” entitling her to recover noneconomic loss damages under §3135(1) and (7) of the Act. The plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to her neck and both wrists. Subsequently, plaintiff was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in both of her wrists which required surgery on each wrist. As a result of these surgeries, plaintiff’s doctor placed her on work restrictions for approximately nine months and ordered her to wear a cervical collar for approximately five months.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals concluded that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCormick v Carrier, summary disposition in favor of defendant was not appropriate. In this regard, the Court held:
“The medical records and testimony in evidence objectively document that [plaintiff] endured a neck injury that gave rise to persistent headaches for at least most of the year after the January 2008 vehicle collision, notwithstanding some medical disagreement with respect to the precise nature of the neck injury. The medical evidence additionally objectively establishes that [plaintiff] suffered from carpal-tunnel syndrome in both her wrists, which caused [plaintiff] pain and numbness from January 2008 until a doctor surgically repaired both wrists, one in October 2008 and the other in November 2008. … As a matter of law, [plaintiff’s] cervical injury and carpal-tunnel syndrome impair important body functions. … According to medical records and testimony, [plaintiff] experienced moderate to severe neck pain and persistent headaches for a year after the January 2008 collision, and she had difficulty sleeping, remaining in an upright position, and engaging in physical activity throughout this period. On doctor’s orders, [plaintiff] wore a cervical collar through May 2008. Doctors placed [plaintiff], who was searching for employment at the time of the January 2008 accident, on work restrictions through September 2008; shortly thereafter, she underwent surgery on both her wrists, which necessitated a four- to six-week recovery period. … [Plaintiff] testified … that she was unable to play with her kids, lift, shoot baskets, or even walk through a grocery store without getting a headache. [Plaintiff] remained able to prepare meals for the children, drive them a short distance to school, and help them with their homework, but on most days otherwise laid in bed ‘pretty much for the rest of the day.’ Contrary to [defendant’s] contention, the photographs showing [plaintiff] putting up a basketball net and riding a lawn mower, which [defendant] attached to her summary disposition brief, simply do not establish as a matter of law that [plaintiff] has resumed ‘her normal daily activities.’
In summary, the record establishes that the January 2008 accident caused [plaintiff’s] neck injury and carpal-tunnel syndrome, and that these conditions chronically gave [plaintiff] pain and precluded her from seeking employment for nearly all of 2008. The record also substantiates that even at the time of [plaintiff’s] deposition a year later, she still could not pursue all the activities she previously enjoyed with her children and felt pain when she tried to perform usual household chores. We conclude that, viewed in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], the record amply demonstrates ‘that some of [plaintiff]’s ability to live in . . . her normal manner of living has been affected,’ McCormick, 487 Mich at 202 …, or, stated differently, that the accident has ‘influence[d] some of . . . [plaintiff’s] capacity to live in . . . her normal manner of living.’ … Consequently, the circuit court improperly granted [defendant’s] motion for summary disposition. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
