Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 209003; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Saad, and O'Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [§3135 – Pre-1996]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involves a tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function which was filed prior to the 1996 threshold amendments. Therefore, the court ruled that the issue of whether plaintiffs injuries constitute serious impairment of body function were to be determined solely by application of the Supreme Court's opinion in DiFranco v Pickard.
In this particular case, a jury returned a verdict of no cause for action and the trial court granted plaintiffs motion for JNOV and a new trial on the issue of damages. Defendant appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed.
The case involved plaintiff s claim that she had sustained a closed head injury in an auto accident Plaintiffs primary evidence of closed head injury was an IQ test that was performed two years after plaintiffs accident which showed an IQ score of 95 and then a subsequent IQ test which was performed two years after completing a traumatic brain injury program in which plaintiffs score was 108.
The defendant presented evidence that the first IQ test taken two years after the accident was not an accurate point of reference from which to measure what effect the accident had on plaintiffs brain function. Rather, the initial IQ score of 95 could simply have been "a reflection of plaintiff's abilities irrespective of the accident." Defendant also introduced the testimony of a neuropsychologist who testified that plaintiff was not suffering from any neuropsychological difficulties at the time plaintiff was examined.
Based upon all of these findings, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable jurors could honestly have differed on the issue of whether plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function and therefore, JNOV was inappropriate and the jury verdict of no cause of action should stand.
