Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No 306756; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Whitbeck, and M.J. 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)]
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
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, regarding Plaintiff’s threshold claims for noneconomic loss, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Defendants following a jury trial because “there was a factual dispute about causation and the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries” which the jury reasonably resolved in Defendant’s favor.
The Plaintiff in this case alleged that she suffered an injury to her “cervical zygapophyseal or facet joints, as well as her left shoulder,” and she further claimed that her injuries caused her to suffer depression. In support of her contention that her injuries met the serious impairment threshold, Plaintiff offered the testimony of her doctor who testified that Plaintiff had “mild disc bulges in her shoulder and minimal disc bulges in her neck” and “that this injury prevented Plaintiff from being able to work one of her two bartending jobs.” Plaintiff further testified that her injuries “prevented her from participating in recreational activities that she enjoyed before the accident.” Conversely, Defendants offered the testimony of its doctor who testified that he was “not sure the facet joints [were] the source of [Plaintiff’s] pain and that he saw no reason from a neurological perspective to restrict Plaintiff’s activities, at work or otherwise.”
At the close of proofs, Plaintiff moved for directed verdict on the threshold issue, arguing that there was no factual dispute that she suffered noneconomic damages resulting from a serious impairment of an important body function. However, the trial court disagreed, finding instead that a question of fact existed as to this issue.
This appeal followed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, stating that Plaintiff’s argument was “without merit.” In this regard, the Court noted that “the three prongs that are necessary to establish a ‘serious impairment of body function’ [are]: (1) an objectively manifested impairment (2) an important body function that (3) affects person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life” as set forth in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 195 (2010). The Court then went on to find that:
“There was conflicting evidence about whether her alleged injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. There was also conflicting evidence about whether Plaintiff sustained an injury to her cervical facet joints.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that “[b]ecause the evidence conflicted, this court will not disturb the jury’s resolution of the issue.”
