U.S District Court for the E.D of Michigan; Docket No. 11-14173
Judge Zatkoff; Unpublished
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(5)**]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)**]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(2)]
Aggravation of Preexisting Conditions [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this federal opinion regarding plaintiff’s claims for noneconomic loss, Judge Zatkoff held that the plaintiff could not meet the threshold as a matter of law and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function because the plaintiff could not establish that her alleged injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life after the accident.
The plaintiff in this case suffered from extensive and well-documented preexisting “pain in her neck, shoulders, hands and fingers, with associated numbness” for which the plaintiff underwent “several surgical procedures.” The court noted that as a result of plaintiff’s preexisting conditions, “she was disabled from work and received worker's compensation benefits.” The plaintiff was involved in an accident and alleged that she suffered accident-related injuries, including: “left neck pain that began the day after the accident”; “mid-back pain radiating into both shoulders, low back pain, and numbness and tingling in her left arm and hand”; and “back stiffness and hip pain that had been gradual since the accident but consistent for the two years thereafter.”
Despite her preexisting conditions, the court held based on evidence presented by the plaintiff that a question of fact existed with regard to whether she in fact did suffer an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the accident. In this regard the court reasoned, “Based upon Plaintiff's testimony that she was injured in the accident, there is evidence upon which a trier of fact could determine that Plaintiff has ‘an objectively manifested impairment’ of an important body function for the period following the accident. As is reflected in the medical records of [plaintiff’s treating doctors], including tests that they ordered, Plaintiff has problems with her neck, back, shoulders and arms and, as a result, there is evidence that she: (a) is unable to sit or stand for long periods; (b) is impaired in her ability to walk, lift, bend, twist and sit; and (c) is not able to care for and participate in activities with her children. As such, the Court finds that there is evidence that, if believed, allows a trier of fact to find that Plaintiff can satisfy the first two prongs of ‘serious impairment of body function,’ i.e., (1) an objectively manifested impairment(2) of an important body function.”
However, the court went on to hold that the plaintiff could not establish that these injuries, “even if present following the accident,” affected her general ability to lead her normal life after the accident. In this regard, the court reasoned, “Plaintiff suffered numerous problems and underwent several surgeries following the work-related injury(ies) she suffered in 2006. More specifically, after suffering the work-related injury in 2006, Plaintiff experienced — and was taken off work by Dr. Harwood due to — pain in her neck, shoulders, hands and fingers, with associated numbness in her hands. She had three surgeries related to those problems in 2007 and 2008, and she was taking three Vicodin Extra Strength per day for pain. In addition, she was on restriction from many normal work and life activities. In fact, at the time of the accident in 2009, Plaintiff still had not returned to work after being taken off the job at the stamping plant in 2006. . . . The evidence submitted to the Court, including Plaintiff's own testimony, reflects the uniformity of complaints, physical conditions and physical limitations Plaintiff experienced both before the accident and after the accident . . . Likewise, as to specific activities that Plaintiff claimed she could not do following the accident (e.g., put on a bra, do laundry or cook big meals), such activities were also activities she could not undertake following her work-related injury. All of her complaints stem from problems with her back, neck and arms, and these are the same types of problems she complained of — and for which [doctors] treated her— prior to the accident. In other words, the Court finds that there is no evidence that Plaintiff's 'ability to live in ... her normal manner of living has itself been affected' . . . In opposing State Farm's summary judgment motion, Plaintiff does not and cannot distinguish her physical condition and limitations after the accident from her physical condition and limitations that existed prior to the accident.”
The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on serious impairment of body function .
