Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285549; Published
Judges Owens, Servitto, and Gleicher; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 285 Mich. App. 389, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability/Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion, decided without oral argument by Judge Owens, 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 reversed the trial court’s Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a meniscal tear in his right knee and hyperextension of the knee for which he underwent arthroscopic surgery. Although the pain diminished in intensity after the surgery, the knee continued to hyperextend. To correct the hyperextension and the associated pain, plaintiff underwent total knee replacement surgery followed by approximately five months of physical therapy.
In reversing, the court noted that plaintiff’s physician stated that plaintiff’s injury was “more likely than not” caused by the motor vehicle accident. In addition, although plaintiff had ended his career as a commercial painter due to financial reasons as opposed to his knee injury, the court noted that plaintiff was under a permanent restriction involving no repetitive bending or prolonged standing. Moreover, this would prevent plaintiff from ever returning to work as a painter. In addition, plaintiff had enjoyed woodworking, and was unable to continue woodworking due to his injury. Finally, the court noted that although plaintiff’s pain level had diminished, he still experienced discomfort five or six times each day. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff established an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function and established that the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Defendants argue that plaintiff presented no evidence that his knee problems resulted from the accident, or were exacerbated by it. Plaintiff argues that at a minimum, he presented a question of fact concerning this issue. We agree with plaintiff. Plaintiff presented a letter from his physician that stated in pertinent part that the car accident ‘more likely than not caused the pain in [plaintiff’s] knee which resulted in total knee arthroplasty.’ . . .
Plaintiff showed that he suffered an impairment of an important body function and that this impairment was objectively manifested. Plaintiff has further demonstrated that his general ability to conduct the course of his life has been affected.
Plaintiff suffered pain for a year after the accident, was forced to undergo major reconstructive surgery, and had great difficulty walking for seven weeks following the surgery. He underwent physical therapy from the surgery until October of 2006. Thus, the ‘nature and extent of the impairment’ and ‘the type and length of treatment required’ factors involved in this case support plaintiff’s position that he suffered a threshold injury. Plaintiff suffers continued, and presumably permanent, residual effects. Although plaintiff’s level of pain has apparently diminished since the knee replacement surgery, he still reports discomfort that occurs five or six times each day. . . .
The trial court correctly noted that plaintiff had ended his career as a commercial painter due to financial reasons, however, painting was still plaintiff’s trade and he has now lost the option of returning to that trade in better economic times. One of plaintiff’s physicians stated that plaintiff was employable in a career that involved ‘no repetitive bending or prolonged standing.’ This restriction would prevent plaintiff from returning to work as a painter. Furthermore, plaintiff formerly enjoyed woodworking, including restoring cabinetry, and had been offered a contract to restore the cabinets in a house, but could not do so because of the accident. . . .
Plaintiff’s injury caused him to have to make a decision between a lifetime of knee hyperextensions resulting in ‘sharp screaming pain’ and having his knee joint replaced with synthetic parts. While the knee replacement has led to some improvement in his ability to function, plaintiff is still missing a portion of his body that he will never retrieve. Plaintiff must forever depend on an artificial joint for his mobility and continues to suffer from chronic pain in his knee which will prevent him from returning to work in his previous occupation and prevents him from enjoying his woodworking hobby.
Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff has established an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that has also established that the impairment affects his general ability to lead his normal life under MCL 500.3135.”
