Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #256360; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Borrello, and Davis; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case claimed aggravation of pre-existing injuries, including injuries to her head, neck, and back, as well as pain in the affected areas, radiculopathy, hip pain, temporomandibular joint syndrome (TMJ), cognitive deficits, dizziness, constant ringing in her ears, and light flashes. The Court of Appeals began its analysis by recognizing that the No-Fault Act does not preclude claims for aggravation of pre-existing injuries. However, to successfully assert such a claim, the plaintiffs must show a causal connection between the accident and the aggravation of the pre-existing injuries. Here, plaintiff failed to produce any documentation in response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition to support her claim the automobile accident aggravated her injuries. Moreover, plaintiff’s emergency treatment records indicate she complained of neck pain, but attributed it to an earlier incident. Routine imaging revealed nothing remarkable and her discharge diagnosis indicated she sustained a cervical strain. Although plaintiff submitted affidavits from her treating physicians in support of her claim, the affidavits consisted of conclusory statements. This was insufficient to survive defendant’s motion for summary disposition. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“While plaintiff provided affidavits from her treating physicians to support her claims, that the aggravation of her preexisting injuries were both objectively manifested and causally connected to the auto accident, the trial court correctly noted the evidence was insufficient to meet her burden. The affidavits from her treating physicians were conclusory at best, the reports were based solely on plaintiff’s subjective complaints, neurological testing, objective physical testing, and all electrodiagnostic testing were normal, and no objective medically identifiable condition was revealed. Plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of material fact that her medical status constituted an objectively manifested impairment caused in part by the automobile accident. . . . Similarly, the statement by Dr. Bharat Tolia that plaintiff’s symptoms were exacerbated by the auto accident was not enough to establish that plaintiff’s preexisting injuries were aggravated by the automobile accident because he does not explain how he reached that conclusion. Nor does Dr. Tolia explain what symptoms were exacerbated, how, or to what extent. Even when viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s impairment was objectively manifested.”
The Court of Appeals next found that even if plaintiff’s claimed aggravation was objectively manifested, she failed to show the aggravation affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff claimed that after her automobile accident, her symptoms increased, however, she did not indicate how these symptoms impaired the overall course of her life. In this regard, the court stated, “Here, because the evidence presented by plaintiff reflects that she is leading essentially the same lifestyle as before the auto accident, plaintiff does not meet the threshold for a serious impairment of body function.”
