Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 322439; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Wilder, and Ronayne Krause; 2-1 (Judge Ronayne Krause dissenting); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this non-unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff, who was struck by a car while riding his bicycle, was not entitled to noneconomic damages because he did not demonstrate that he suffered a serious impairment of body function within the meaning of MCL 500.3135.
Plaintiff in this case was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. The only injuries corroborated by medical records were bulging discs in plaintiff's back, which an MRI revealed. Plaintiff’s doctor submitted an affidavit indicating that these bulging discs were the cause of plaintiff's back pain. Plaintiff also claimed that he suffered tinnitus, vision problems, and headaches. However, according to the Court of Appeals opinion, these claims were "never corroborated by medical records or connected to the bulging discs in his back."
The Court of Appeals held the trial court properly determined that plaintiff “did not establish that any impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life."
In this regard, the Court of Appeals reasoned that, at the time of the accident:
"plaintiff did not have a job, engage in hobbies, play sports, or have a girlfriend before the accident. He primarily watched television. Although plaintiff claims that, since the accident, he has not been able to ride his bicycle, his testimony indicated that he has not even tried to ride his bicycle since the accident. Plaintiff claims that he cannot stand for long or sit in a chair for a couple hours because it hurts to do so, and he mentions yard work, but, in light of the record and the whole of plaintiff's testimony, we find that plaintiff's vague claims are not sufficient to create a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff's normal manner of living was affected by the impairment. As noted, plaintiff testified that before the accident, he primarily watched television, and plaintiff has not established that the injuries affected his ‘normal manner of living. …’ Indeed, plaintiff indicated that, post-accident, he [b]asically stay[s] home and watch[es] TV.”
Accordingly, plaintiff did not establish that any impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life and summary disposition for the defendant was appropriate, the Court of Appeals concluded.
In a separate dissenting Opinion, Judge Ronayne Krause said the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for defendant because plaintiff established a question of fact whether his general ability to lead his normal life was affected by the accident.
