Serious impairment of an important body function; MCL 500.3135(1); MCL 500.3135(2)(a); MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick v. Carrier; Lysogorski v. Bridgeport Charter Twp.; Washington v. Van Buren Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; Schwingschlegl v. City of Monroe; Mosley v. Dati

Holding that plaintiff-Birchfield “created a triable issue of fact that he suffered a serious impairment of an important body function, contrary to the trial court’s assessment,” the court reversed and remanded. Birchfield was rear-ended by defendant-Chiodo and initially denied any injury. During the next three years, he “sought treatment for his back pain from a number of medical providers.” Because the pain persisted, he sought damages under MCL 500.3135(1). The court emphasized that the evidence revealed a factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the back injury, and that the dispute was material to deciding whether he suffered a serious impairment. Under the rules governing summary disposition, the court may not determine whether his evidence was “stronger or more persuasive than the evidence presented by defendants, and we may not superimpose our own view of which side should win or lose.” The court held that the evidence supported that “Birchfield has limited range of motion and chronic pain due to his back injury, that the impairment is objectively manifested by reduced range of motion and spasms, and that it has affected (and continues to affect) his general ability to lead his normal life.”