Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #296276; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Cavanaugh, and Stephens; Unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-Present) [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-present) [3135(7)]
General Ability/Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-present) [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010-present) [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam post-McCormick opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings the trial court’s order in which the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of State Farm on the issue of serious impairment of body function in a claim made under the uninsured motorist portion of the policy.
Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on the steps of a bus giving rise to a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under a policy with State Farm. The plaintiff’s injury consisted of a fractured ankle requiring surgery which included the application of plates and screws. The plaintiff used crutches for six to eight weeks and then wore a “moon boot” for six months. She missed a week of work as a General Manager of a restaurant. She had difficulty doing household chores while she was on crutches. She still sometimes needed help carrying a load of laundry or a vacuum cleaner up or down stairs. She had to take “double steps” when going up or down stairs, could not walk her dogs as often as she used to, did not use ladders at work as she used to, could not wear high heels, and had problems getting on and off her husband’s motorcycle.
After the trial court determined that she had “failed to demonstrate that the injury impacted the overall trajectory of her life” her claim was dismissed for having not satisfied the serious impairment threshold requirements under the Kreiner standard.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the McCormick v. Carrier decision had implemented a different test for determining a threshold case and under McCormick, courts must now consider three points:
1. A person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life need only be affected, not destroyed;
2. The plain language of the statute only requires that some of the person’s ability to live in his or her normal manner of living has been affected, not that some of the person’s normal manner of living has itself been affected. Additionally, there is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected.
3. The statute does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last in order to have an effect on the person’s general ability to live his or her life.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Court of Appeals held that when applying the McCormick standard, the plaintiff had presented evidence that she suffered an injury that had an effect on her ability to lead a normal life. Therefore, the trial court’s decision must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings in light of McCormick.
