The Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 306018; Published
Judges Sawyer, Saad, and Meter; Unanimous, Opinion by Judge Saad
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Forthcoming; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (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
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published Opinion by Judge Saad regarding Plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages brought under the motor-vehicle exception to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition on the issue of whether the plaintiff suffered a threshold injury, because questions of fact remained regarding whether plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested, whether they caused impairment to an important body function, and whether they affected his ability to lead a normal life.
The Plaintiff in this case was sideswiped by a dump truck traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. He testified that during the accident, he felt a “violent jerk” and immediate pain in his middle and lower back. Plaintiff asked the defendant to call an ambulance and was initially examined at the scene by medical personnel. He was then taken to the hospital by his mother where he was diagnosed with "lower back pain," prescribed Ibuprofen and a muscle relaxant, and was discharged on the same day with instructions to increase his activity “as tolerated” and to follow-up with his primary doctor. Following his discharge, Plaintiff’s back pain persisted, and he underwent physical therapy, electronic stimulation, and manipulation under anesthesia. Over time, he was prescribed stronger pain medications and additional muscle relaxants. The Plaintiff testified that his back pain prevented him from working for several months after the accident; that he required assistance with running errands and performing daily chores; and that he could not attend sporting events or participate in various recreational activities that he enjoyed before the collision.
In holding that the defendant’s motion for summary disposition was properly denied, the court first concluded that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested. The Court found it significant that while an EMG revealed no noticeable back problems, subsequent tests showed a herniated disc and pinched nerve in Plaintiff’s back. The Court also noted that the “[p]laintiff underwent these tests several months after the accident” and determined that the plaintiff raised “an issue of fact regarding the existence of an objectively manifested impairment.”
The Court then found that “Plaintiff also presented evidence to raise a question of fact about whether the impairment was to an important body function and whether it affected his ability to lead a normal life.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered evidence of the plaintiff’s life for several months before and after the accident and determined that the “trial court correctly denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition on this ground.” The Court reasoned:
“Plaintiff testified that, for several months after the accident, his back pain prevented him from working, he needed assistance running errands because he could not drive, he needed someone else to cut the grass, rake leaves, do laundry, clean the house, cook, and grocery shop. He further testified that he could not sit or stand for long periods of time and, therefore, could not attend sporting events or participate in various recreational activities he enjoyed before the collision.”
Therefore, because questions of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested, whether they caused impairment to an important body function, and whether they affected his ability to lead a normal life, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition on the issue of whether Plaintiff suffered a threshold injury.
