Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 147789; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Holbrook, and MacKenzie; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, subsequent to a verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant, where the jury concluded that plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of body function.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained a neck injury when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a car driven by defendant. Plaintiff claimed he sustained a whiplash-type injury which caused his head to be tilted to the right and restricted the range of motion in his neck. Plaintiffs physicians found that he had a congenital condition in his neck which made plaintiff more susceptible to whiplash-type injury. In contrast, defendant offered the testimony of physicians who performed independent medical examinations who concluded that plaintiff was not suffering from a congenital defect and could find nothing abnormal. Defendant also introduced testimony of plaintiff’s employer, who testified that plaintiff performed heavy manual labor, including shoveling and raking, without any difficulty, subsequent to the accident. Also introduced were surveillance videotapes which showed that plaintiff did not tilt his head and that he appeared to have a normal range of motion in his neck.
The Court of Appeals found that the jury verdict in this case was not against the great weight of the evidence, and therefore, the Court of Appeals would not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Plaintiff also appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for a mistrial when defense counsel questioned plaintiff about a medical report concerning injuries sustained in a subsequent automobile accident. The trial court had previously ruled that the report could not be introduced without the testimony of the physician who generated the report. Rather than order a mistrial, the trial court issued a curative instruction providing that the jury was to disregard the answer. While the Court of Appeals found that the instruction was inadequate to overcome the prejudice of the improper question, it held that no miscarriage of justice occurred, as the evidence in support of defendant's claim was sufficiently strong to offset the prejudicial effect of the improper question.
