Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 322036; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Jansen, and Meter; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
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In this non-unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether their impairments affected their general ability to lead their normal lives under MCL 500.3135, thereby reversing the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendants.
There were two plaintiffs in this case, Tracy Moore and Ladeshia Hall. The Court of Appeals did not describe the nature of plaintiffs’ injuries in detail, noting only that plaintiff Hall claimed that she suffered "back, neck, and shoulder pain" and the pain "increased after the accident." The only issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs' claimed impairments "affected their general ability to lead their normal lives." The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants.
The Court of Appeals reversed and held that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to establish a material question of fact regarding whether their impairments affected their general ability to lead their normal lives.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals reasoned as follows regarding plaintiff Moore:
“[P]laintiff Tracy Moore testified during her deposition that her injuries affected her ability to sleep because she now tosses and turns in pain, she can no longer carry heavy things such as groceries without her husband's assistance, she has difficulty climbing stairs, she could no longer do certain chores such as cleaning the bathtub like she used to, it hurts to laugh, and sexual activity is painful due to her injuries. Plaintiff Moore also testified that she could no longer walk for exercise — though she had done so before the accident — and she had not been able to exercise at all since the accident. While [P]laintiff Moore's injuries may not have dramatically affected her overall lifestyle, sufficient evidence exists that her impairments had some effect on her general ability to lead her normal life. This evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of a material question of fact.”
With respect to plaintiff Hall, the Court of Appeals noted that she testified at her deposition that her back, neck, and shoulder pain increased after the accident, causing her to miss numerous days of work. The court said:
“The fact that her doctor told her that she could return to work within a month of her deposition is irrelevant because there is no temporal requirement regarding how long an impairment must last. Plaintiff Hall also testified that ‘anything’ was liable to cause her pain when she used her right arm and that, for example, she had difficulty lifting items and could not do her physical therapy exercises because of the pain. She further testified that long car rides were uncomfortable for her, a fact that contributed to her decreased social life after the accident. Finally, plaintiff Hall noted that she had been a ‘very active person’ and that she ‘really love[d] to walk’ before the accident, but was now unable to walk for a long period of time. Again, this evidence was sufficient to create a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff Hall's general ability to lead her normal life had been affected.”
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concluded:
“In sum, given the evidence presented by plaintiffs demonstrating that some of their general ability to lead their normal lives had been affected, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on this basis.”
