Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 315182; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Owens, and Stephens; 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)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [§3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that despite the fact that Plaintiff’s CAT and MRI scans were negative, the plaintiff was properly granted a directed verdict on the objective manifestation element; and that the Plaintiff had proven that he had sustained a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law.
The plaintiff in this case “presented testimony from his three medical doctors, Drs. Newman, Meland, and Fankhauser, who testified that plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury—a physical injury to his brain—as a consequence of the collision. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a concussion, post-concussive syndrome, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant failed to present any testimony from a medical doctor which disputed those diagnoses. . . . [P]laintiff’s impairment—his brain impairment—was evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions. See [McCormick] at 196. That is, for example, the medical evidence included that plaintiff experienced almost constant head pain, nausea, light and noise sensitivities, speech impediments, insomnia, fatigue, balance issues, and difficulties with focus, attention, and short-term memory. Thus, the physical injury to plaintiff’s brain clearly affected his brain function. Although defendant’s clinical psychologist, Axelrod, testified that his neuropsychological testing did not demonstrate certain cognitive deficits, and thus disputing one symptom of plaintiff’s brain injury, Axelrod did not address most of plaintiff’s other symptoms or conditions that evidenced his brain impairment. And, again, Axelrod testified that he had no opinion as to whether plaintiff suffered an actual physical injury to his brain because the issue was outside of his area of expertise. Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded as a question of law that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function.”
