Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 312457; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Servitto, and Shapiro; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEX:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(5)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals REVERSED an Order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict on serious impairment of body function because questions of fact existed regarding the objective manifestation and general ability elements which precluded a decision as a matter of law on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
The plaintiff in this case was injured as a ten-year-old child in 2001. During the accident she was rendered unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she complained of back pain and was transported by ambulance to the hospital. After a few hours she was released. Plaintiff was then asymptomatic for approximately five years until 2006 when she began to experience leg and neck pain. An MRI showed plaintiff suffered from three herniated discs that doctors opined were caused by the 2001 car accident. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence of an objectively manifested injury under McCormick to create a question of fact. In so holding, the court stated: “There was sufficient evidence of the [objective manifestation] requirement. Specifically, Dr. Bez testified that a MRI showed plaintiff suffered from three herniated discs that were caused by the 2001 car accident. Defendant does not contest that an MRI is objective evidence. Instead, he argues that there were no objectively manifested symptoms because plaintiff was asymptomatic from the date of the accident until 2006. However, the plain language of the statute does not include a temporal requirement, see MCL 500.3135.” Kallman at *8.
The court next held that there was sufficient evidence of an impairment to an important body function under McCormick. In this regard, the Court stated, “Regarding the [important body function] requirements, in Chouman, this Court stated that ‘we can conceive of no serious dispute that the spine is an extremely important part of every person’s body.’ Coextensively, the movement of the back is an important body function. And in this case, the parties do not dispute that the second requirement has been established.” Kallman at *3, *4.
Finally, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding the general ability element. In this regard, the Court reasoned, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was also sufficient evidence to at least raise a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life. ‘[T]he common understanding of to “affect the person’s ability to lead his or her normal life” is to have an influence on some of the person’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living.’ McCormick, 487 Mich at 202. ‘Determining the effect or influence that the impairment has had on a plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life necessarily requires a comparison of the plaintiff’s life before and after the incident.’ Id. In making the comparison, it is important to note the person’s ability to lead his or her normal life must only be ‘affected, not destroyed.’ Id. In this case, the evidence clearly showed that plaintiff’s ability to lead her normal life was affected. Before the onset of symptoms, plaintiff was able to play basketball and run. Now she is unable to do either without pain. She testified that she is also unable to assist in family chores or even dress herself at times without severe pain. ‘[T]here is no quantitative minimum as to the percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected.’ Id. at 203. Therefore, defendant’s arguments that plaintiff can still pursue her chosen profession, work and attend school fulltime are without merit. It is sufficient that some aspect of plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was affected. Finally, ‘the statute does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last in order to have an effect on “the person’s general ability to live his or her normal life.”’ Id. Similarly, there is no temporal requirement for when a person’s ability to lead his or her normal life must be affected. Thus, to the extent that defendant argues plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to submit her case to the jury because she was asymptomatic for over five years, his argument is unpersuasive.” Kallman at *4 (emphasis in original).
