Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 320173; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Owens, and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to establish that he suffered a threshold injury under MCL 500.3135, because there was evidence that his general ability to lead his normal life was “significantly altered.”
Plaintiff Eccleston was struck broadside by a large passenger van. Following the accident, he did not immediately seek medical attention. Two weeks later, he saw a physician, William Carion, M.D., complaining of neck pain and tingling in his fingers. He was prescribed medication and physical therapy. After several months of physical therapy and "slow, if any, improvement," plaintiff began to see Dr. Todd Best for pain management. Dr. Best noted ruptured and herniated discs in plaintiff’s neck, as well as muscle spasms and limited range of motion. He referred plaintiff to a chiropractor and prescribed muscle relaxers for the spasms and pain. The court noted that "throughout his treatment, Eccleston suffered from a limited range of motion and neck pain or muscle spasms” and that Dr. Best "witnessed the muscle spasms in Eccleston's neck." The Court also noted that Dr. Best "reported that trigger point injections and visiting a chiropractor were helping Eccleston's pain, but that Eccleston had not reached pre-accident levels of functioning and likely never would." Plaintiff testified at his deposition that “he worked as a contractor and primarily remodeled homes. He enjoyed golfing, going to the gym, and lifting weights before the accident." However, he testified that after the accident, he was unable to perform certain types of work without pain. Plaintiff further testified that he "struggled to carry shingles up a ladder to perform roofing, to hang drywall, and to paint”; that "[a]lthough he could complete the jobs with the pain, they took longer, and he was more likely to hire a day laborer to do the work for him"; and that "he had to golf less because of the pain and, after attempting to return to the gym after the accident, he found that he could not exercise because of the pain." The defendants argued that plaintiff could not satisfy the general ability element because "Eccleston has found a way to continue his pre-accident life."
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument on the basis that under McCormick, "that is not the proper inquiry."
The Court of Appeals then recognized that:
"courts should consider not only whether the impairment has led the person to completely cease a pre-incident activity or lifestyle element, but also whether, although a person is able to lead his or her pre-incident normal life, the person's general ability to do so was nonetheless affected."
According to the Court of Appeals:
"[T]here is evidence that Eccleston still maintains a similar lifestyle, but there is also evidence that his general ability to lead his normal life has been significantly altered. Eccleston has reported that many of his activities now cause him a great deal of pain, and stated that he must hire day laborers to perform work he used to do on his own. Further, Best and Gross both opined that Eccleston's injuries from the accident were a prime cause of pain that will likely never go away. As such, there was evidence establishing that Eccleston's general ability to lead his normal life had been affected.”
