U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 98-74393;
Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff; Unpublished
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [§3135(2)(a)(ii)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion and Order, Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff denied defendants' motion for summary disposition on plaintiffs claim of serious impairment of body function. The case was filed after the effective date of the 1995 threshold amendments. The injuries involved in this case primarily consisted of a closed head injury which required neuropsychological treatment and extensive testing. An IQ test was administered to plaintiff in 1995 resulting in a full scale IQ score of 116. A second IQ test was administered in September, 1999, approximately two (2) years later which showed a marked improvement in plaintiffs abilities with a full scale IQ test score of 135. There was also neuropsychological testimony that plaintiffs processing speed was well below what would be expected given plaintiffs intellectual potential. Moreover, there was testimony that plaintiffs previously existing depressive disorder had been made worse by her brain injury. Based upon all of this, Judge Zatkoff found that there was a genuine issue of fact which made summary disposition inappropriate. In this regard, the court stated:
"A twenty point improvement in her full scale IQ and improvements in her reading, spelling, and arithmetic scores illustrates that plaintiff suffered a serious decline in her cognitive reasoning as a result of the accident, and her diminished processing speed further illustrates this fact. The lingering effects of the accident remain, according to her doctors, are a result of the auto accident and the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated that as a result of the auto accident, her injuries could meet the threshold required for recovery of non-economic damages under Michigan law. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED."
