Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 244665; Unpublished;
Judges Smolenski, White, and Kelly; 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 (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict for plaintiff following the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
At trial, plaintiff presented evidence that her doctor diagnosed and an MRI confirmed a “C7 radiculopathy,” or a “pinched nerve at that level.” There was evidence that plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical neuralgia and an MRI revealed that plaintiff suffered from a disc protrusion. Based upon this evidence, the trial court properly found that plaintiff satisfied the “objectively manifested impairment” requirement.
Relying on its previous holding in Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the defendant had conceded that the back and neck involve important body functions.
Concerning whether the injury affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life, the evidence disclosed that a question of fact existed with regard to whether plaintiff’s impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff testified that he experienced chronic pain and back pain and the problems were aggravated when he either sat or stood for long periods. He further testified that he experienced problems with both of his shoulders and a toe on his left foot is always numb. He is also uncomfortable sleeping due to his back pain. He took medication daily to alleviate his pain. Sometimes the pain was unbearable. Plaintiff further testified that his injuries affected his work because he was now restricted to light duty. Plaintiff also testified concerning the affect on his personal life, including his ability to pitch horse shoes, horseback ride, play basketball with the kids, bicycle riding, and hunting.
Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
The Court of Appeals also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s counsel had violated MCL 500.3030 for making repeated references to Allstate Insurance Company and other insurance companies during the testimony of the physician who conducted an independent medical examination of the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the question was relevant to the doctor’s credibility and for the purpose of showing bias, and that the court’s instruction was sufficient to cure any perceived prejudice.
