Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #309852; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Fitzgerald, and R. Krause; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s claims for noneconomic loss, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in defendant’s favor, because the defendant did not establish entitlement to summary disposition under the McCormick threshold standard.
The plaintiff in this case suffered injuries which the court described as “a collapsed lung and fractured ribs.” He was hospitalized for seven days and was discharged, but he later returned to the emergency room approximately a month later “because of chest pain and [to have] fluid drained from his lungs.” He underwent physical therapy and treated with a chiropractor for his neck, back, and lower lumbar area. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff suffered “neck and back pain” and experienced “tingling in his hands.” The plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident, but testified during his deposition that his injuries “impacted his ability to work.” The plaintiff further testified that his injuries affected his ability to exercise, participate in events with his child, and his ability to drive.
The plaintiff in this case failed to file a timely response, and the trial court therefore granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that “[i]rrespective of the timeliness of the filing of the response, defendant’s proofs did not demonstrate entitlement to summary disposition as a matter of law in light of McCormick.” In this regard, the Court of Appeals reasoned:
“In the present case, a review of the lower court record reveals that defendant submitted the entire transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Therein, plaintiff testified regarding the extent of his injuries and the impact on his life before and after the accident. He testified regarding his collapsed lung that impacted his ability to breath, the complications that continued causing his return to the emergency room, and the physical therapy and chiropractic visits that followed. Although plaintiff was not employed immediately before the accident, the impact on his ability to lead a normal life need only be affected, not destroyed. McCormick, 487 Mich at 202-203. He testified regarding restrictions imposed by his doctor, his limitation on his own activities such as exercise, his ability to play and participate in events with his child, and his ability to drive due to a neck injury following the accident. He testified that his injury to his back and tingling in his hands impacted his ability to work. Pursuant to the requirements established in McCormick, 487 Mich at 195, defendant did not establish entitlement to summary disposition in light of the submission of plaintiff’s deposition testimony in its entirety.”
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court held that “[t]he trial court erred in concluding that the failure to file a timely answer warranted summary disposition in favor of defendant.”
