Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 310762; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, K.F. Kelly, and Servitto; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-Present) [§3135(5)**]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-Present) [§3135(5)**]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [§3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s claims for noneconomic loss, the Court of Appeals held “that summary disposition was improperly granted for defendant on serious impairment of body function because a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff suffered and objectively manifested impairment of an important body function.”
The plaintiff in this case alleged that she suffered a closed-head injury. Following her accident, she was treated in the emergency room and “diagnosed with a neck and shoulder sprain.” She later followed up for treatment with her primary doctor. For months following the accident, the plaintiff experienced “a rabbit cognitive degeneration, with difficulties in concentrating, expressing herself and remembering things.” One physician opined that “plaintiff suffered from some preexisting conditions as to her back, but that these conditions ‘may have been clinically silent and aggravated by the motor vehicle accident.’” The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant after finding that the “plaintiff has not demonstrated an objectively manifested impairment on an important body function resulting from this accident,” and after finding that the closed-head injury requirements contained in MCL 500.3135(2) “have not been satisfied.”
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and held that medical evidence offered by the plaintiff was sufficient to create a question of fact regarding whether she “suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function.” In so holding, the Court reasoned:
“The medical reports that plaintiff submitted to substantiate her claim were sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. She saw at least three different physicians. Dr. Anthony Emmer, a neurologist, opined that plaintiff suffered from some preexisting conditions as to her back, but that these conditions “may have been clinically silent and aggravated by the motor vehicle accident.” After a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff, Dr. Louis Dvorkin, a neuropsychologist made the following finding: “Diagnostic impression is of Mild Cognitive Impairment that was significantly exacerbated by an acutely destabilizing and traumatic neurological event in the form of a cerebral concussion.” Dr. William M. Leuchter, another neurologist, determined that plaintiff had a “mild head injury with post concussive phenomenon,” a possible “atypical seizure, chronic subdural hematoma or traumatic brain injury--[i.e.] Intracranial hemorrhage, confusion or other.” Based upon the information received from plaintiff, Dr. Leuchter ultimately found “[p]sychophysiologic sequelae of motor vehicle accident.”
The court went on to note that “even if some of her injuries were pre-existing, plaintiff provided medical support that those injuries were exacerbated by the motor vehicle accident and thus she demonstrated a question of fact as to whether she suffered an objectively manifested impairment of a body function [sic]” under the McCormick standard.
Summary disposition for the defendant on serious impairment of body function was therefore REVERSED.
