Nechovski v Gutt; (COA-UNP, 4/26/2002, RB #2297)

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #228668; Unpublished
Judges Gage, Griffin and Buth; 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)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable

CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s noneconomic loss claim for serious impairment of body function. In this case, the plaintiff apparently suffered some unspecified type of neck or back injuries which were not demonstrable on any clinical examination and did not affect plaintiff’s normal life. Therefore, plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to create a question of fact and her claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law. In so holding, the court stated:

“Every diagnostic tool used by the various evaluating physicians, including x-ray, MRI, EMG and an arterial Dopper exam of both arms, yielded normal results. Further, the numerous physical exams by a number of physicians failed to support a finding of any objectively manifested injury except for one physician. Dr. Carla Morton noted some tightness of the back muscles upon palpation. That this one isolated finding would give rise to a question of fact whether plaintiff had an objectively manifested injury is tenuous at best. However, plaintiff’s injury did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. The evidence showed that she could engage in the everyday activities of living. She missed some time from school, but did graduate, albeit six months late. While in school, she declined to participate in sports because she could not perform as well as she once had. A self-imposed restriction on athletic activities does not affect one’s general ability to lead a normal life where one can still work and engage in social and everyday activities.... Although she did not work again, there was no evidence that she was physically unable to work. Rather, she did not have to because her father supported her. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that plaintiff’s injury did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life and therefore the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion.”

STATUTORY INDEXING:

MCL 500.3135

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)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:

Not applicable

In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s noneconomic loss claim for serious impairment of body function. In this case, the plaintiff apparently suffered some unspecified type of neck or back injuries which were not demonstrable on any clinical examination and did not affect plaintiff’s normal life. Therefore, plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to create a question of fact and her claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law. In so holding, the court stated, “Every diagnostic tool used by the various evaluating physicians, including x-ray, MRI, EMG and an arterial Dopper exam of both arms, yielded normal results. Further, the numerous physical exams by a number of physicians failed to support a finding of any objectively manifested injury except for one physician. Dr. Carla Morton noted some tightness of the back muscles upon palpation. That this one isolated finding would give rise to a question of fact whether plaintiff had an objectively manifested injury is tenuous at best. However, plaintiff’s injury did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. The evidence showed that she could engage in the everyday activities of living. She missed some time from school, but did graduate, albeit six months late. While in school, she declined to participate in sports because she could not perform as well as she once had. A self-imposed restriction on athletic activities does not affect one’s general ability to lead a normal life where one can still work and engage in social and everyday activities.... Although she did not work again, there was no evidence that she was physically unable to work. Rather, she did not have to because her father supported her. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that plaintiff’s injury did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life and therefore the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion.”