Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82224; Unpublished
Judges Beasley, Maher, and Dodge; Unanimous; Pur Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to vacate a jury verdict of no cause for action on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff sustained three undisplaced fractures of her ribs, superimposed over a host of very serious pre-accident medical conditions including ulcers, cancer, gall bladder removal, appendectomy, cataract surgery, etc. Plaintiff contended the jury verdict for defendant should be vacated for the reason that defense counsel's closing argument was prejudicial. First, plaintiff contended that defense counsel invited the jurors to step into plaintiff’s shoes, and by doing so, asked them to compare plaintiff’s relatively minor auto accident injuries with her very severe pre-accident maladies. Although specifically refusing to "condone defense counsel's" remarks, the Court did not believe the comments, on the whole, denied plaintiff a fair trial. In addition, the remarks were proper to the extent they attempted to persuade the jury that the cause of the plaintiff’s pain was due to pre-accident factors.
Second, plaintiff contended that defense counsel's remarks that plaintiff’s medical bills "have all been taken care of and that "she has been compensated" for wage loss, injected improper facts into the proceedings. Again, the Court specifically stated that "We cannot condone defense counsel's remarks but refuse to find that the remarks denied plaintiff a fair trial. In so holding, the Court noted that defense counsel did not go so far as to state by whom the bills and wage loss were paid.
