Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #291168; Unpublished
Judges Owens, O’Connell, and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Important body function element of serious impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fisher [Item No. 2428], and reversed in part and affirmed in part, the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this auto negligence case.
The plaintiff in this case sustained several rib fractures, a pneumothorax, a fractured shoulder, two fractures to his left leg femur, ruptured anterior cruciate ligament, and medial meniscus tear. Initially, plaintiff underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery of his femur fracture as well as of his neck fracture. Four days later, plaintiff underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery of his left arm and proximal humerus. Following the second surgery, plaintiff was precluded from weight-bearing, was required to use a wheelchair, and was prescribed ongoing physical therapy. Three months later, plaintiff underwent shoulder manipulation with cortisone injections for shoulder stiffness. Six months after the initial accident, plaintiff underwent close manipulation arthroscopic surgery with Acromial Decompression with hardware removal on his left shoulder. Nearly 17 months after the accident, plaintiff underwent surgery to remove the hardware from his left femur in addition to ACL reconstruction of his left knee with a partial medial meniscectomy. Through all of this, plaintiff participated in physical therapy and participated in 96 sessions of physical therapy from the date of the accident until 15 months later. In addition, he was on medical restrictions for over one year and was precluded from returning to work as a bounty hunter, due to those restrictions.
On appeal, the court noted that although plaintiff recovered from his various injuries, the court found sufficient evidence that his femoral fractures and left shoulder injuries met the statutory threshold for serious impairment of body function. Therefore, the court determined that the trial court improperly denied plaintiff’s request for a directed verdict regarding those injuries. However, the court further stated that further proceedings were required to determine whether the impact of those injuries affected the plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. Moreover, the court noted that the trial court properly submitted the issue regarding plaintiff’s left knee injury to the jury as a genuine issue of fact regarding the relationship of the knee injury to the accident. Therefore, the court found that the jury’s verdict that plaintiff’s left knee injury did not comprise a serious impairment of body function should be upheld. In this regard, the court stated:
“[A]though plaintiff has recovered from his various injuries, because sufficient evidence was presented to establish that his femoral fractures and left shoulder injuries were of such a nature and extent to meet the statutory threshold for a serious impairment of body function, the trial court erred in failing to grant plaintiff’s request for a directed verdict with regard to these injuries. Following the Kreiner Court’s multi-step analysis, the trial court could also have determined as a matter of law that plaintiff demonstrated that the impairment was of an ‘important body function.’ Kreiner, 471 Mich at 132. As previously determined by this Court, ‘[w]alking is an important body function.’ Kern, 240 Mich App at 343. Further, it is not subject to dispute that plaintiff’s injuries were ‘objectively manifested’ through x-rays, surgical reports, etc. However, further proceedings are necessitated consistent with Kreiner to determine whether the impact of those impairments has affected ‘plaintiff’s general ability to lead his . . . normal life.’ Kreiner, 471 Mich 132-133. In addition, we note that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue pertaining to plaintiff’s left knee injury to the jury as a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the relationship of this injury to the accident. As such, the jury’s verdict finding plaintiff’s left knee injury did not comprise a serious impairment of body function should be upheld.
We affirm in part, reverse the trial court’s ruling denying the grant of a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff, as his humerus and femur injuries met the statutory threshold to establish a serious impairment of an important body function and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and the jury’s determination of fault attribution.”
