Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.78-5418; Published
Judges Cynar, Brennan, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 97 Mich App 654; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
Loss of Consortium Claims [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous Opinion, the Court of Appeals made several significant holdings: First, the Court affirmed the trial court's refusal to admit opinion testimony of the plaintiff’s two treating physicians regarding whether or not the plaintiff’s physical injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function. In so holding, the Court stated that before expert opinion evidence may be admitted, three factors must be established to the trial court's satisfaction, (i) the witness must be qualified as an expert in his field, (ii) there must be facts which require an expert's interpretation or analysis, (iii) the witness' knowledge must be peculiar to experts rather than to lay persons. With regard to the plaintiff’s neck and chest injuries, the Court of Appeals concluded that the doctor's opinion regarding the severity of these injuries was not "otherwise admissible" under MRE 702 because "the jury was fully capable, on the record before them, to determine the question of serious impairment vel non with respect to these injuries." With regard to the plaintiff’s stiff neck, the Court of Appeals likewise concluded that the jury was capable of reaching their own conclusions regarding the severity of that injury "given the detailed testimony regarding the diagnosis of the injuries and the doctor's explanation of the medical terms utilized in such diagnosis."
Second, the Court held that in order for a loss of consortium claim to be maintained under the doctrine set forth in Warner v Brigham (item number 195) the physically injured plaintiff must first establish a "threshold injury" under §3135. Therefore, the trial court's directed verdict on the loss of consortium claim was not reversible error in light of the jury's finding of no cause of action on the question of serious impairment of body function.
Third, the Court held that it was not reversible error to refuse plaintiff's request for a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The Court held that on the record it could be concluded that "reasonable persons could differ as to the meaning of the evidence in question, especially when viewed in a light most favorable to defendants, the nonmoving party.
