Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 291154; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Zahra, and Kelly; 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)]
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s threshold claims for non-economic losses, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in defendant’s favor on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a threshold injury and remanded the case for further consideration under the relevant new standards established in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, (2010), because “the trial court’s analysis and decision relied on [Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004)],” which the Supreme Court subsequently overruled in McCormick.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in two separate accidents. The first accident occurred in June of 2005, and the second occurred in October of 2006 after plaintiff struck the rear of the vehicle being driven by defendant. After the second accident, plaintiff filed suit against the defendant accident alleging that “she suffered a serious impairment of a body function and an aggravation of any preexisting conditions” caused by the previous accident. The Court did not further describe plaintiff’s injuries.
Thereafter, the defendant moved for summary disposition on the threshold issue of serious impairment. Then, after applying the threshold injury standard set forth in Kreiner, supra, the trial court granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor. In this regard, the trial court reasoned that:
“[The] plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an objectively manifested injury because ‘[t]he only evidence of objectively manifested injuries in this case [consist of those that] existed both prior to and following the accident underlying this case.’ It also found that plaintiff failed to show that she suffered a serious impairment of body function because her life after the second accident remained the same as it had been after the first accident.”
Following the trial court’s ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the McCormick case, which overruled Kreiner and established relative new standards for determining whether a plaintiff has suffered a threshold injury under § 3135(1) and (7). Therefore, “because the trial court’s analysis and decision relied on Kreiner,” the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for further consideration of the foregoing issues in light of the new standard announced in McCormick, supra.
