Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 295835; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Fitzgerald, and Beckering; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unpublished unanimous per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s threshold claims for non-economic loss, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary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 for reconsideration, because the trial court’s ruling was based on the threshold standard set forth in Kreiner v Fischer, which the Supreme Court overruled in McCormick v Carrier and established a relative new standard.
The plaintiff in this case was involved in an auto-accident wherein her vehicle was struck from the rear by the defendant. Following the accident, the plaintiff brought suit alleging that suffered a serious impairment of a body function under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7) after sustaining accident-related injuries, which the Court described as “a herniated disk in the C4-C5 and that the accident exacerbated the pain in her neck and right shoulder due to physical ailments not caused by the accident with defendant.” Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a threshold injury, which the trial court then granted after applying the threshold Kreiner standard.
This appeal followed, and the Court of Appeals noted that following the trial court’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided the case of McCormick v Carrier, which overruled Kreiner and “established new standards for determining when a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function.” After then finding that “the Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick applies retroactively,” the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the relevant new standard established in McCormick. In this regard, the Court reasoned:
"Because the trial court’s analysis and order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition were based on the now-overruled standards for determining when a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function set forth in Kreiner, we vacate the order and remand for reconsideration under McCormick."
