Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 80778; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Cynar, and Deming; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 148 Mich App 313; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to disturb a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on her claim of serious impairment of body function. At trial, defendant moved for "summary judgment" on the threshold question at the close of plaintiff s proofs and again at the end of all proofs. The trial court held that the case involved a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries which dispute was material to the determination of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function. Accordingly, the case was submitted to the jury, which found in plaintiff’s favor.
Essentially, plaintiff’s injuries consisted primarily of an aggravation of a prior existing arthritic condition. One of plaintiff’s doctors diagnosed her condition as a degenerative C-5 intervertebral disc and degenerative L-4 disc with nerve root compression. In his opinion, the treating physician testified that the auto accident accelerated the degeneration of the discs and caused them to be symptomatic. His prognosis was that the damage to the discs would worsen over time. Another orthopedic physician testified on plaintiff’s behalf that her injuries would not resolve completely under any form of treatment. A third physician testifying on plaintiff’s behalf who had treated plaintiff’s arthritis prior to the accident testified that the accident severely aggravated the preexisting arthritis. Clinical examination of the plaintiff revealed active and passive range of motion limitations. In addition, x-rays confirmed the presence of the preexisting arthritic condition. On cross-examination, plaintiff’s physicians acknowledged that plaintiff’s preexisting condition may have caused her difficulties independent of any accident trauma. A defense physician testified that plaintiff’s osteoarthritic condition predated the automobile accident and that the accident was not a significant factor in causing plaintiff’s current problems.
In ruling mat the issue was properly submitted to the jury, the court stated, "We conclude that it was proper for the trial court to submit this case to the jury. The testimony of plaintiff and Drs. Maxim, Salot and Haas demonstrated that plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested through x-rays and passive movement tests and substantially affected her ability to lead a normal life. Nevertheless, the testimony of defendant's expert, Dr. Quinn, and defense counsel's cross-examination of plaintiff s experts created a question as to whether the accident aggravated or made symptomatic plaintiff’s preexisting degenerative disease, and if so, the extent of the aggravation. Given this factual dispute, we find no error."
The court also noted that there appears to be a conflict in Court of Appeals cases regarding the appropriate standard of review regarding lower court rulings on the threshold issue. Some panels have utilized the standard of reviewing the evidence "in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Other panels have used the "clearly erroneous" standard. The court stated that in this case, it did not make any difference which standard was used in that a material factual dispute existed requiring jury resolution.
