Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 305718; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, K.F. Kelly, and Donofrio; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding Plaintiff’s tort threshold claims for non-economic damages, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in Defendant’s favor because the Plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries had “an affect upon his ability to lead a normal life.”
The Plaintiff in this case sustained injuries that were not clearly described in the Court’s opinion. The injuries apparently occurred as a result of a rear-end collision that caused only minor damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff declined treatment at the scene of the accident but went to the hospital later that day. Within a week of the accident, the Plaintiff alleged that he was no longer able to work, shut his business down, and moved into his parents’ home so his mother could take care of him. Plaintiff treated with two physicians who supported his need for treatment and work restrictions and attributed his pain to the accident. However, three independent medical examiners concluded that Plaintiff’s “physical complaint were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s presentation.”
After reviewing the three definitional elements necessary to prove serious impairment of a body function, and after concluding that a question of fact existed regarding whether Plaintiff’s injuries were “objectively manifested,” the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that his injury “affected his general ability to lead his normal life.” Therefore, Plaintiff had not satisfied his burden of presenting adequate evidence that he had suffered serious impairment of body function. In this regard, the Court of Appeals held:
“[P]laintiff testified that his condition affected his general ability to lead a normal life because he could no longer work, perform basic tasks, or play with his children. However, in his deposition, plaintiff acknowledged that he could still motivate and train people in the course of his employment and did not even attempt to perform basic tasks for himself, such as prepare a bowl of cereal. . . . Although we conclude that the trial court erred by holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the objective manifestation because of the conflicts in the medical evidence, the trial court properly granted summary disposition because plaintiff failed to establish an affect upon his ability to lead a normal life. A review of the record reveals that plaintiff testified that he worked eighty hours per week, but completely shut his business down because he could not lift 10 to 20 pounds or go to the post office. However, plaintiff did not delegate any responsibility to his twenty employees, for which he did not maintain personnel files, and could not recall the name of any suppliers at his deposition. Additionally, although plaintiff testified that his mother did “everything” for him, he admitted that he never tried to perform basic tasks such as making breakfast, washing clothes, or grocery shopping. One cannot simply surmise that he lacks the ability to accomplish a basic task absent any attempt to perform it. A party must oppose a motion for summary disposition with admissible documentary evidence that must contain a factual foundation without relying on speculation and conjecture. Rose, 466 Mich at 470; Cloverleaf Car Co, 213 Mich App at 192-193. In comparing plaintiff’s life before and after the accident, plaintiff did not meet his evidentiary burden of proof.”
