United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #05-CV-72545
Honorable Judge Robert H. Cleland
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Opinion not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In an opinion decided after the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB# 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, Judge Robert H. Cleland denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses, finding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and that she sustained a serious impairment of body function.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a traumatic brain injury which was corroborated by two physicians and a spinal injury consisting of eight herniated discs and a compression fracture. In denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Cleland first noted that plaintiff properly submitted sworn testimony that she sustained a serious neurological injury as a result of the accident from two medical doctors who regularly diagnose and treat traumatic brain injuries. In this regard, Judge Cleland stated: “[Plaintiff] presented sworn affidavits from two medical doctors who regularly diagnose and treat such injuries which stated that Plaintiff indeed may have suffered a serious neurological injury as a result of the accident . . . These affidavits provide a sufficient basis for allowing the finder of fact to consider Plaintiff’s closed-head injury.”
Judge Cleland next determined that plaintiff’s back injury was objectively manifested in the form of eight herniated discs with a compression fracture to one of those discs. Judge Cleland also found that this injury may have affected the course of plaintiff’s life because it seriously affected her ability to work, seek employment, manage her household, drive, and pursue leisure activities. Moreover, Judge Cleland noted that her progress for recovery was uncertain. Therefore, he concluded that summary judgment for defendants was improper. In this regard, Judge Cleland stated:
“The factual dispute regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s back injuries is material to the question of whether Plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function. A favorable view of the evidence for her presents a question of fact concerning the impact of her injuries on the course and trajectory of her life. That question is apparent in the divergent doctor’s opinions concerning what effects are due to the accident and what effects are self-imposed, as well as what the degree of those effects is. Plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested in the form of herniation of eight discs and a compression fracture of one of those discs. Her injuries may have seriously impacted her ability to work, seek employment, manage her household, drive, and pursue leisure activities. These effects, in the opinion of the doctors, will last a lifetime and will require continuing medical treatment. The prognosis for recovery is uncertain, and Plaintiff may never be able to physically live her life substantially the way she lived it before the accident.”
