Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #224338; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Doctoroff and Jansen; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for JNOV following a jury verdict of no cause for action in plaintiff’s third-party liability claim for noneconomic damages. In this case, plaintiff claimed that the automobile accident caused him to suffer an injury to his temporomandibular joint (TMJ). There was conflicting evidence as to whether plaintiff had suffered a TMJ injury and, if so, whether it was related to the accident or some other physical condition. The jury rejected plaintiff’s claim by responding “No” to the first question on the verdict form which asked, “whether plaintiff sustained injury or damage.” By so responding, the jury was clearly indicating that it reached the conclusion that plaintiff either did not suffer from TMJ or that his TMJ was not a result of the accident. The trial court refused to disturb the jury’s verdict and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A jury is allowed to weigh the credibility of witnesses and to accept or reject all or part of the testimony of witnesses. In this case, the court noted that the parties had presented conflicting evidence that gave rise to fact questions regarding the accuracy of plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and the credibility of the plaintiff and his expert witness. Therefore, the court concluded:
“Considering the evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the jurors could have reasonably concluded that plaintiff’s diagnosis of the TMJ injury was doubtful or that the TMJ was not a result of the accident. Because there was sufficient evidence to create an issue for the jury, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
