Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #295491; Published
Judges Murray, Fitzgerald, Krause; Unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Forthcoming; 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)]
Important Body Function 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(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling granting plaintiff a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function for the reason that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick v. Carrier, the threshold issue may not be decided as a matter of law if there is a material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that such a material factual dispute existed, thereby requiring jury determination of the threshold issue. The plaintiff in this case sustained back injuries which plaintiff’s treating physician diagnosed as a herniated lumbar disc and pinched nerve that were demonstrable on MRI examination. Plaintiff’s physician opined that her injuries disabled her from being able to perform her job as a daycare school teacher. Defendant’s IME medical examiner agreed that one MRI examination showed a herniated disc but disagreed there was any clinical evidence of nerve root irritation or any other damage. Moreover, the IME examiner testified that a subsequent MRI examination continued to reflect a “small disc protrusion” with “no definite neural impingement” and that bulging discs, per se, were normal anatomical features. Therefore, defendant’s IME examiner found no objective basis for restricting plaintiff from her pre-accident activities, including, her employment. The Court of Appeals agreed that there seemed to be no dispute that plaintiff had a “bulging disc in her spine which is objectively manifested on two MRI’s” and further stated that there was “no serious disputes the spine is an extremely important part of every person’s body.” However, the court held that the trial court committed error in ruling that reasonable minds could not differ as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. In that regard, the court stated “there appears to be a genuine dispute whether the objectively manifested abnormalities in [plaintiff’s] spine and nerve continue to be impairments…consequentially, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on that issue.”
Plaintiff’s claim arose in the context of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits. With regard to the trial of that claim, two evidentiary issues arose which were also addressed by the Court of Appeals. The first dealt with whether it was proper to admit evidence that payment for plaintiff’s medical expenses was terminated by defendant, which plaintiff claimed was relevant to explain why she did not continue medical treatment for her injuries. The Court of Appeals found that such evidence was admissible as long as the evidence did not identify the defendant as the payor of the medical expenses.
The second evidentiary issue was whether it was proper to admit evidence that defendant had given consent to plaintiff to settle her underlying tort case with the tortfeasor. With respect to that issue, the court held that evidence of defendant’s consent to settlement was not admissible.
As a result of the aforementioned holdings, the case was remanded to the trial court for retrial.
