Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #226426; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Fitzgerald and Talbot; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order refusing to grant summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The trial court properly submitted the claim to the jury and the jury found that plaintiff had sustained a threshold injury. The injuries suffered by plaintiff primarily involved injuries to the neck and low back and a mild closed head injury. In holding that these injuries presented a factual dispute requiring jury resolution, the court stated:
“…there were objective manifestations of plaintiff's injuries. One of plaintiff's treating physicians found a disc bulge in plaintiff's lower back, and a central disc displacement in plaintiff's neck. A second treating physician indicated that plaintiff's electromyelogram report tested positive, which revealed irritation of the nerve roots in the lower lumbosacral spine, and that these injuries related to disc bulging. We also find that plaintiff presented evidence that his injuries affected his general ability to lead a normal life. After the accident, plaintiff missed ten weeks of work, and required approximately two years of medical treatment. Additionally, once plaintiff returned to work, his work schedule was reduced, and his job performance was limited because of his injuries. Further, after the accident, plaintiff was no longer able to engage in activities he previously performed, such as jogging, tennis, and playing with his children. Thus, we hold that plaintiff met the threshold, in regard to his back and neck injuries, required to submit this case to the jury.”
The court also went on to hold that plaintiff was entitled to jury determination of his closed head injury claim even though he could not satisfy the “closed head injury exception” set forth in Section 3135(2)(a)(ii). Relying upon the earlier reported decision in Churchman v Rickerson, the court held that a closed head injury claim can go to the jury in one of two (2) ways: by satisfying the closed head injury exception with testimony from a qualified licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician that there may be a serious neurological injury, or by showing that there was a material factual dispute as to whether plaintiff's closed head injury claim constitutes serious impairment of body function. In this regard, the court stated:
“MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii) does not attempt to limit the admissibility of evidence relating to a closed-head injury.... Thus, regardless of whether a plaintiff has met the requirements under the closed-head injury exception, plaintiff could still prove he suffered from a closed-head injury through other evidence. We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that related to plaintiff's closed-head injury.”
