Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 318721; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Meter, 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)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to conclude that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment.
The plaintiff in this case suffered from pre-existing "low back and depression conditions." She alleged that these conditions were aggravated by the accident, and that during the accident, she further suffered "a right hip bursitis, traumatic right greater trochanteric bursisitis, right sacroiliac joint dysfunction, cervical radiculopathy, and L4-L5 radiculopathy." The court further noted with regard to Plaintiff’s neck that “in August 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy and an MRI in October 2010 revealed a ‘[s]mall central disc herniation at C6-7.’ A follow-up CT of her cervical spine in August 2011 revealed loss of the normal cervical lordosis, possibly due to muscle spasm or soft tissue injury. According to plaintiff’s medical records, her neck condition caused her pain, spasms, and range of motion limitations, as well as radiating pain and numbness to her right arm and hand. . . .And the record evidence did not indicate that plaintiff had cervical radiculopathy and a disc herniation at C6-C7 before this motor vehicle collision." The court further noted with regard to the Plaintiff’s right hip, right thigh, and low back that "in October 2010 plaintiff was diagnosed with traumatic right hip bursitis, traumatic right greater trochanteric bursitis, and right sacroiliac joint dysfunction. In May 2011, an EMG revealed ‘right lateral femoral neuropathy (meralgia paresthetica).’ In October 2011, plaintiff’s neurologist’s impression was ‘[r]ecurrence of Lumbosacral neuropathy due to MVC of 2010.’ A subsequent EMG revealed right meralgia paresthetica secondary to seatbelt injury and right L4-L5 radiculopathy secondary to the motor vehicle accident. An MRI of the lumbar spine, also performed in October 2011, revealed ‘diffuse posterior disc bulging’ at the L4-5 level with ‘moderate impingement upon the neural foramen bilaterally.’ At the L5-S1 level there was ‘diffuse posterior disc bulging, accompanied by a very thin broad-based disc herniation in the midline which is slightly more prominent and lobulated in the midline.’ There was also ‘mild impingement upon the neural foramen bilaterally’ at this level. Subsequently, plaintiff’s neurologist treated plaintiff for ‘Posttraumatic lumbosacral L4-L5 radiculopathy, posttraumatic R meralgia paresthetica, lumbosacral myalgia.’ According to plaintiff’s medical records, these physical conditions required extensive treatment, including several courses of physical therapy, various oral medications, and several injections. These conditions also impaired plaintiff’s ability to walk, caused a permanent limp, and necessitated her use of a walker, leg brace, and cane.” Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to conclude that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment. In so holding, the Court of Appeals first concluded “there is a material factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered in the motor vehicle collision.” The court reasoned that "plaintiff presented evidence that she actually suffered neck, right hip and right thigh injuries, as well as post-traumatic stress syndrome, which she did not have before this motor vehicle collision. She also claimed to have suffered a significant aggravation of her previously resolved low back issues and previously well-controlled depression.” The court next held that “even if there was no material factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, we would conclude that plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested impairment.” The court reasoned, "Immediately after the motor vehicle collision, plaintiff complained to ambulance personnel of right arm and right leg pain and weakness. Thereafter, she consistently sought medical treatment for neck, right hip, right thigh, and low back problems, as well as for mental health issues.”
