Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 35506; Published
Judges Hood, T.M. Burns, and Theiler; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 158 Mich App 141; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of defendant in a case in which plaintiff alleged serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff alleges on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the serious impairment question, and in failing to grant plaintiff ‘s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff was injured in 1980 when his car was struck in the rear by a city bus. The initial diagnosis was cervical sprain, with no x-ray evidence of skull or spine fracture or abnormality. A neurologist prescribed physical therapy for six months, and performed an EMG which was positive. Thereafter, the neurologist felt that the plaintiff could probably return to his work as a truck driver. In 1981, plaintiff began treating with a psychiatrist who diagnosed plaintiff as having a reactive depression, post traumatic reaction, perhaps as a result of the accident. An independent medical exam by another psychiatrist diagnosed plaintiff as having a personality disorder pre-existing the accident. A clinical psychologist performed a battery of tests and found no organic brain damage such as could be suffered from a closed head injury. A subsequent treating psychiatrist diagnosed post-concussion syndrome secondary to injuries sustained in the accident.
Based upon the conflicting evidence, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment, and also denied defendant's motion on the same issue.
In light of DiFranco, the Court of Appeals felt that the trial court correctly submitted the threshold issue to the jury. Further, the Court of Appeals held that the jury verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. The judgment of no cause was therefore affirmed.
