Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 295035; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Kelly, and Donofrio; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished unanimous per curiam opinion regarding Plaintiff’s threshold claims for non-economic losses, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary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 Plaintiff’s threshold and remanded for further proceedings, because the trial court “relied upon a standard that is no longer good law,” in that it was “articulated in Kreiner v Fischer,” which the Supreme Court overruled in McCormick v Carrier and set forth a relative new standard.
In this case, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant and brought this suit to recover non-economic damages, alleging that she suffered a serious impairment of a body function under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7) based on injuries she sustained in the accident. The court described Plaintiff's injuries as “injuries to her back, neck, and head.” Defendant later moved for summary disposition on Plaintiff’s threshold claims, arguing that Plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the threshold. Applying the Kreiner standard, the trial court agreed and granted Defendant’s motion. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred “because there was objective evidence that Plaintiff suffered lumbar and cervical spinal injuries, a left shoulder injury and psychological symptoms that affected her normal life.” In reviewing Plaintiff’s threshold claims, the Court of Appeals noted that in granting Defendant’s motion for summary disposition, “the Circuit Court relied upon a standard that is no longer good law, articulated in Kreiner but reversed in McCormick, to conclude that Plaintiff ‘failed to develop a record sufficient to demonstrate the effect on her life from the injury as extensive enough to meet the ‘serious impairment’ threshold.’”
The Court then expounded on the distinctions between the now-defunct Kreiner standard and the relative new standard established in McCormick, explaining that:
“Under McCormick, the trial court is tasked with deciding whether a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law so long as there was no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the injuries that is material to determining whether a threshold injury was met. Id. at 215. To demonstrate the existence of “a serious impairment of body function,” a plaintiff must show:
(1) an objectively manifested impairment (observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions) (2) of an important body function (a body function of value, significance, or consequence to the injured person) that (3) affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life (influences some of the plaintiff’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living). [Id.]
With regard to the third prong, “the statute merely requires that a person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected, not destroyed.” Id. at 202 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court further explained:
Thus, while the extent to which a person's general ability to live his or her normal life is affected by an impairment is undoubtedly related to what the person's normal manner of living is, there is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person's normal manner of living that must be affected. [Id. at 202-203.]
In other words, under McCormick, unlike in Kreiner, a de minimis effect on the injured person’s normal life might be enough to amount to a serious impairment under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7). This serious impairment analysis is fact specific and must be performed on a case-by-case basis.”
Accordingly, given the fact that the Supreme Court established a new less-stringent standard for meeting the threshold in McCormick and overruled the previously-controlling Kreiner standard, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in Defendants favor on the issue of Plaintiff’s threshold claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the relative new McCormick standard. In this regard, the Court held:
“Since the circuit court evaluated defendant’s motion for summary disposition under the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner, which requires that the injured party show more than a de minimis effect of the injury on normal life to demonstrate a serious impairment under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7), we vacate the order granting summary disposition and remand to the circuit court to analyze defendant’s motion under the new standard set out in McCormick.”
