Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #281317; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Bandstra, and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010 [3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 Fischer [Item No. 2428], and affirmed the trial court’s Order denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict and JNOV on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic losses and affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on his claims.
The plaintiff in this case sustained an ill-defined left wrist injury for which he underwent surgery followed by physical therapy and pain medication. He also sustained an ill-defined injury to his lower back, allegedly resulting in a boney spur, a protruding disc, and a soft tissue injury, as well as a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder which required surgery and post-surgical treatment.
The trial court ruled that plaintiff’s injuries created questions of fact requiring jury determination. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for directed verdict was denied and the case was, therefore, submitted to a jury who rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff. The defendant subsequently made a motion for JNOV which the trial court denied. In affirming the trial court’s Order denying defendants’ motions, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s wrist injury was objectively manifested by a CT scan and an arthrogram. As to whether there was an objective manifestation of a back injury, the court determined that the testimony which correlated his lower back problems to the extensive bruising on his back after the accident constituted objective medical evidence. The court then determined that although his shoulder injury did not establish a threshold injury, the impairments he suffered due to his back and wrist injuries did. In so finding, the court noted that plaintiff was highly active before the accident. However, after the accident, because of his back and wrist injuries, the plaintiff’s ability to hunt and fish was severely curtailed and he could only ride his bike for short distances. Furthermore, he was ultimately unable to do yard work and had to hire a lawn service. Moreover, expert testimony was presented that it was unlikely plaintiff would ever be free of pain. In this regard, the court stated:
“We agree with defendants that plaintiff’s shoulder injury did not establish a threshold injury. . . .
However, the evidence concerning plaintiff’s back and wrist injuries, and the manner in which those injuries affected plaintiff’s post-accident lifestyle, was sufficient to establish a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff testified that his participation in hunting and fishing, and his involvement in other athletic and recreational activities, which were a significant part of his life before the accident, was severely curtailed and restricted because of the physical limitations from his injuries. He still rode his bicycle, but only for shorter distances. He tried to resume his lawn maintenance chores, but was not able to do so because of the pain and he had to hire a lawn service. . . .
Furthermore, the totality of circumstances established that plaintiff led a highly active lifestyle before the accident, that his athletic and outdoor activities gave significant meaning to his life, and that his injuries forced him to substantially curtail or restrict these activities. Accordingly, the evidence established a material factual dispute whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function within the meaning of MCL 500.3135(7). Consequently, this was a question properly presented to the jury, rather than one for the court to decide as a matter of law. MCL 500.3135(2)(a).”
