Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 320246; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, Ronayne Krause, and Riordan; 2-1 (with Judge Riordan 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In this non-unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant and held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that her injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life, pursuant to MCL 500.3135. According to the Court of Appeals, plaintiff was not required to show that her life was “destroyed” by her injury.
Plaintiff in this case was struck from the rear while stopped at a red light and was pushed into the vehicle stopped in front of her. At the time of the collision, plaintiff’s hands were allegedly on the steering wheel, and she reported that she believed her shoulder was twisted from the force of the impact. Plaintiff suffered a torn rotator cuff and later underwent surgery and physical therapy. The trial court ruled that a question of fact existed regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries. However, the trial court went on to conclude that regardless, plaintiff's injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life, and therefore granted summary disposition for defendant regarding serious impairment of body function.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the general ability element.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals reasoned:
“[T]here was evidence that plaintiff had numerous medical issues and ailments before the accident. However, evidence also supported that plaintiff injured her shoulder in the accident and that, under McCormick, the injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Specifically, plaintiff testified at her deposition that since the accident she had constant pain in her shoulder, was unable to pick up items, wash the walls in her home, climb a ladder, carry her own grocery bags, carry her own shopping bags at stores, write checks with her right, dominant hand, hold her 'two new grandbabies' or drive for extended periods of time. That plaintiff still lives on her own, attends to her own personal needs, and performs many of the same chores she did before the accident does not negate that she does so now with pain or that there are many activities she is unable to do. Further, plaintiff has attended medical appointments and physical therapy for more than two years since the accident, and has also dealt with injections in, and surgery on, her shoulder. This evidence supports that plaintiff’s injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that her life has been destroyed by the injury and ‘there is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected.’”
Judge Riordan dissented and said that, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence did not establish a genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life after the accident.
