Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 323811; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Hoekstra, and Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability of Uninsured Tortfeasors [§3135(1) (3)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion where plaintiff was involved in auto accidents in 2011 and 2012, the Court of Appeals held plaintiff failed to show the 2012 accident caused her to suffer a serious impairment of a body function and that her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life, within the meaning of MCL 500.3135. Rather, the Court found that plaintiff's post-2011 accident life was “essentially the same as” her post-2012 accident life.
Plaintiff in this case was injured in a rear-end collision in 2012. After the accident, plaintiff experienced pain in her neck and head, and she was transported to the hospital. Plaintiff had been involved in a previous accident in 2011 for which she had sought treatment from various doctors and therapists. The 2011 accident also caused her to suffer "continual neck and back pain" and "discomfort in her extremities." She was also unable to perform her job as a certified nursing assistant following the 2011 accident, and was unable to care for herself, and therefore her daughter helped her. Plaintiff argued that she suffered a serious impairment of a body function as a result of the 2012 accident, "and specifically, that her injuries had affected her general ability to lead her normal life."
The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition for the defendants. In so holding, the appeals court reasoned:
“Prior to the November 8, 2012 accident, plaintiff lived a largely inactive lifestyle as a result of her September 18, 2011 accident. Plaintiff did not work at Precise Healthcare as a certified nursing assistant since her September 18, 2011 accident. After the September 18, 2011 accident, plaintiff required the help of her daughter to do basic chores and errands. When asked ‘what did [your daughter] do for you,’ plaintiff responded, ‘[c]ook, clean, errands, wash clothes, take my kids to practice, her brothers and sisters, take them to practice, took them to school, did everything.’ After the November 8, 2012 accident, when asked how her daughter helped out, plaintiff similarly responded, ‘[w]ash, clean, take me to get my hair done, my nails done, she helps me get dressed, she help[s] me in and out of the shower, [and] she help[s] me to the bathroom.’ Before the September 18, 2011 accident, plaintiff was actively involved in her community. She provided catering services, cooked for block parties, cooked for her children's sports teams, and sold handmade baskets from her home as well. However, since the September 18, 2011 accident, plaintiff was unable to do any of these community activities. Plaintiff's post-September 18, 2011 life is essentially the same as her post-November 8, 2012 life. Plaintiff's activities before November 8, 2012, and after November 8, 2012, are the same; she has been unable to work and has not engaged in the community like she did previously. Moreover, plaintiff has presented no further evidence of any other activities that may have been affected by her alleged injuries.”
The Court of Appeals further rejected plaintiff's contention that she was prepared to go back to work shortly before the 2012 accident, and concluded the evidence supporting this argument was “sparse.”
