Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #237235; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Kelly and Fort Hood; 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)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant directed verdict to defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function, holding that a question of fact existed requiring jury determination. This case is also the first decision to implement the Supreme Court's remand order in Kreiner v Fischer. The plaintiff in this case had a pre-existing neck condition which was aggravated by the subject automobile accident. Plaintiff produced evidence that as a result of the automobile accident she suffered a herniated disc at C5-C6 and that this herniated disc did not exist prior to the accident. The Court of Appeals held this was the kind of injury that “goes beyond general aches and pains, as it is a herniated disc in the spine. . . . The 'movement of one's back is an important body function.' . . . The objective manifestations of a back injury can be established through x-rays indicating an abnormal spine. . . . Here, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination revealed the herniated discs. A MRI is an objective test. . . .” The court then examined whether plaintiff's injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life and noted that the Supreme Court, in Kreiner v Fischer, held that a “serious affect is not required rather, the affect must be on one's general ability to lead his normal life.” In that regard, the court noted:
“it is appropriate to compare plaintiff's lifestyle before and after the accident. . . . At the time of the accident plaintiff had not been employed since 1992. However, plaintiff testified that she was helping her sister remodel her house, took care of horses, did house work, and helped her parents out with farm work; all of which was adversely affected by injuries she suffered in the automobile accident. As a result of the accident, plaintiff testified that she could not have relations with her husband, could not sleep at night, could not fix her hair the way she wanted, could not lift bails of hay, and had trouble getting in and out of a car. Plaintiff also indicated there were social and fun activities she could not participate in as a result of the accident. Prior to the accident, plaintiff testified that she would ride her horse on a daily basis and that she could not do this following the accident. Additionally, plaintiff testified that there was a time period of approximately ten days following the accident where she 'did nothing' and 'sat mostly in a chair' as a result of the accident. Thus, there was evidence that the injuries affected plaintiff's general ability to lead her normal life. . . .”
Finally, the court held that the trial judge did not commit error in giving jury instruction SJI2d 50.11, which sets forth Michigan law on aggravation of a prior existing condition and the indivisible injury rule. This instruction is appropriate when it is given in tandem with SJI2d 36.11 setting forth the required elements for proving serious impairment of body function.
