Michigan Court of Appeals Docket #295282 Unpublished
Judges Krause, Servitto, and Gleicher; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation 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 SUMMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam post-McCormick opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings the trial court’s Order in which the trial court granted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 the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The Court of Appeals held that there were disputed issues of fact concerning the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries that were material to determining whether the threshold standards were met.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2006. She claimed that as a consequence of her injuries, she developed a condition called “reflex sympathetic dystrophy (“RSD”). Defendant moved for summary disposition on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to show a serious impairment of body function as required by MCL 500.3135(1)(7). In granting the defendant’s motion, the Circuit Court applied the now defunct standards set forth in Kreiner v. Fisher, 471 Mich 109 (2004), rev’d in McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010). The trial court based its ruling on what the court described as an absence of “objectively manifested injury” because there was nothing except the plaintiff’s subjective complaint supporting her assertions of pain in the arm and neck. The trial court also noted that the plaintiff had “voluntarily” quit her job without any doctor supporting her claim that she could not work any longer. The plaintiff, representing herself in propria person, responded by filing medical records from a doctor who described in his assessment his diagnosis of her condition of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Further, deposition testimony from that doctor confirmed that the diagnosis of RSD related to the car accident in what he characterized as “severe limitations of use” of the shoulder and arm.
The Court of Appeals in reversing the trial court, noted that McCormick (supra) had announced a new standard for evaluating whether injuries satisfy the threshold of serious impairment. That standard requires that the issue of serious impairment should be determined by the court as a “matter of law” as long as there is no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the person’s injuries that is material to determining whether the threshold standards are met.
Applying the legal principals from McCormick, the Court of Appeals held that a factual dispute exists concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries that is material to determining whether the threshold standards are met, and therefore, the Circuit Court erred by deciding this question as a matter of law.
