Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #223079; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Wilder and Cooper; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for additur and awarding plaintiff $4,500 in damages following a jury verdict in which the jury concluded that plaintiff had sustained a serious impairment of body function, but also concluding that the total amount of plaintiff’s damages for non-economic loss was “zero dollars.”
Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle when struck from behind. She was taken to the emergency room complaining of aches in her head, neck, back, arm and knees. X-rays showed no broken bones, and she was released from the hospital with prescription medication for pain. She wore a neck brace for several days. She had follow-up visits with her regular doctor once a week for six weeks. She claimed that she was unable to complete daily activities such as laundry, biking, walking, sitting or standing for extended periods of time. Later she began receiving chiropractic treatment three times per week for a period of 13 months. Her chiropractor testified that her injuries were objectively manifested by muscle spasms, trigger points, range-of-motion and motion palpation. At the close of proofs, defendant moved for directed verdict, contending that the evidence failed to establish that plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court denied the motion, finding the existence of a question fact on this threshold question. After one hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict, finding that the plaintiff had sustained an injury resulting in serious impairment of a body function, but concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.
Post-verdict, the trial court granted additur in the amount of $4,500. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion and failed to follow the dictates of MCR 2.611(E)(1), which only permits additur with the written consent of the non-moving party. If the non-moving party does not consent, the only relief available to the moving party is for the trial court to grant the motion for a new trial filed in the alternative. Further, the court rule requires that the conditional additur award must be the lowest amount the evidence will support, necessitating some specific findings by the trial court to support the award. Here, the trial court made no such findings in support of its additur award. The trial court’s finding that the jury’s verdict was “inconsistent” is not a ground codified in MCR 2.611(A)(1) for granting a new trial. Therefore, the trial court made no findings which would support, in the alternative, the grant of a new trial. The Court of Appeals remanded this case for entry of judgment on the original jury verdict of zero dollars in damages.
