Noneconomic tort damages under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the accident; Patrick v. Turkelson; McCormick v. Carrier; “Serious impairment of body function”; MCL 500.3135(5); Proximate causation; Preexisting condition; Fisher v. Blankenship; Wilkinson v. Lee; Washington v. Van Buren Cnty. Rd. Comm’n

Holding that plaintiff “presented evidence, albeit slight in comparison to the countervailing evidence, that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the accident,” the court concluded that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary disposition. Plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with defendant in 2017. She argued that the trial court erred by holding that she did not suffer an objectively manifested impairment. The court held that from its review of the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the medical report of Dr. D, who treated her for several months after the “accident, provided sufficient evidence that her disabling post-accident condition was objectively manifested and resulted from that accident.” The trial court found “that the disability certificates ‘do not present evidence of an objectively manifested impairment; instead they only outline physical restrictions.’” In doing so, it “overlooked that the certificates did bear on the issue of causation precisely because they ‘outline[d] physical restrictions’ that came about ‘for injuries sustained in the’ accident.” Although, as it noted, D “never rendered an opinion ‘regarding the impairment that was causing Plaintiff’s pain,’ based upon physically examining plaintiff and performing diagnostic tests, [D] observed a decreased range of motion in plaintiff’s back and neck, decreased muscle strength in her left leg, and hypoactive reflexes in her lower extremities; he also diagnosed plaintiff with cervical and lumbar sprains/strains and radiculopathy and related her physical disability to the accident, restricting her from work, housework, and recreational activity. [D’s] report thus provided evidence from which a juror could reasonably infer that the injuries sustained in the 2017 accident caused plaintiff’s functional impairments.” D linked his diagnosis to the “accident and his observation of plaintiff’s decreased range of motion, decreased left leg strength, and hypoactive reflexes was an objective observation.” Reversed and remanded.