Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #224150; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Wilder and Cooper; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
Causation Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny plaintiff's motion for a new trial after the jury had returned a verdict that plaintiff's injuries did not amount to a serious impairment of body function. The trial judge had earlier denied plaintiff's motion for directed verdict on the threshold issue because there was a material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries and whether the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of those injuries. In this case, plaintiff was involved in two automobile accidents. After the first accident, plaintiff was thought to have “whiplash.” After the second accident, it was discovered that plaintiff had sustained herniated discs in her neck and back which her doctor attributed to the first accident. The jury found that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries but that the injuries did not amount to a serious impairment of body function.
In affirming the trial court's decision not to disturb the jury's verdict, the Court of Appeals stated,“ The evidence showed that plaintiff had a medically identifiable injury, that being herniated discs. However, as noted above, there was a genuine issue of fact whether that injury was the result of the accident caused by defendant or by a subsequent accident in which defendant was not involved. Moreover, the evidence failed to conclusively establish that any injury caused by defendant significantly affected plaintiff's ability to lead a normal life. Indeed, plaintiff's activities were not restricted, she could still do housework, albeit with difficulty, and the only change in her activities was that she had discontinued bowling.”
