Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 86197; Published
Judges R.B. Burns, Maher, and Brouillette; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 155 Mich App 89; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [§3135 – Pre-1996]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Burns, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for summary disposition on the threshold issue, holding that the facts of this case created a material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries, thus entitling plaintiff to jury determination of the threshold question.
The Court's opinion primarily focused on plaintiff’s two major injuries: (1) his head injury with resultant memory deficit, and (2) his lower back injury.
With regard to plaintiff’s head injury, the Court noted that plaintiff had testified at deposition that prior to the accident he had an excellent memory and that after the accident he had a significant memory loss. Plaintiff testified this affected his ability to perform his job and to socialize normally with people. In analyzing this injury, the Court noted that "the crucial question is whether this complaint arose out of an objectively manifested injury." On this "crucial question" there was conflicting expert testimony. Plaintiff offered the reports and affidavit of a clinical neuropsychologist who had performed a battery of tests designed to measure memory function. According to plaintiff’s neuropsychologist, these tests suggested "some left hemisphere lateralization of plaintiff s memory defect," and "plaintiff showed minimal but consistent evidence of higher cortical dysfunction" which the psychologist felt was due to plaintiff’s head injury. Plaintiff was also examined by defendant's physician who could find no objective evidence of why plaintiff was making complaints of memory loss. The Court of Appeals held that there was dispute between the parties and their doctors as to the nature and extent of plaintiff s head injury and whether his claimed memory loss was objectively manifested. Therefore, summary disposition of this issue was not proper.
With regard to plaintiff’s complaint of back problems, the Court again concluded that there was a factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the claimed injury Plaintiff’s examining physician found that plaintiff had decreased range of motion in the lower back which was detectable by a passive range of motion test opposed to an active range of motion test (see Salim v Sheplers Item No. 832). In addition x-rays revealed that plaintiff had a reversal of the normal cervical lordotic curve with a revealed structural change at the lumbosacral joint. According to this examining physician plaintiff’s back injury was objectively manifested Defendant's examining physician found no abnormality on the x-rays and no other objective evidence of injury. The Court, held that the movement of one's back is an important body function which, if the jury were to believe plaintiff physician, would be objectively manifested in this case. Therefore, summary disposition of this question was not proper.
